Illegal Obama Illegal Immigration Executive Order Speech Set For Thursday

Stock up on pep pills. Obama will drone on Thursday about illegal immigration in a speech. The speech will be the last gasp of a loser as he announces an illegal “executive order” on illegal immigration.

It will be a loser speech by a loser. If this Obama “executive order” was a winner Obama would have announced it before the elections of November 2014. If it was a real big winner Obama would have announced his “executive order” before his own reelection in November 2012. But Obama waited and waited hoping to bait Republicans into a trap.

Barack Obama threatened. If the congress would not bow to his imperious demands then Obama threatened to act on his own. Barack Obama threatened and threatened some more. Republicans quivered in fear but fear also prevented them from moving forward with amnesty. Obama threatened again. Increasingly Republicans lost their fear and stood their ground.

Barack Obama threatened again. He would act alone like an imperial personage in a backwater country. Republicans began to quiver less and less and wonder why Obama was threatening so much and doing so little. Then came the flood of border crossing children goaded to come by Obama and his allies and the public began to take notice of what was happening at the border.

Barack Obama’s threats became a hole he dug for himself. Barack Obama thought that he could bully Republicans into doing what he demanded. But then Republicans saw that this was a case of MISERY LOVES COMPANY. Republicans smartly refused to provide company to the miserable Obama.

Every Obama policy was on the ballot in November 2014, every single one. Obama lost. So now Obama doubles down on immigration amnesty because… well, what else is there to do other than golf?

Nearly half of Americans disapprove of President Barack Obama’s expected plan to take executive action that would potentially allow millions of undocumented immigrants to stay legally in the United States, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

Forty-eight percent oppose Obama taking executive action on immigration — which could come as soon as later this week — while 38 percent support it; another 14 percent have no opinion or are unsure. [snip]

Obama’s illegal illegal immigration executive order is a sign of pure weakness, and hypocrisy:

Obama’s royal flip-flop on using executive action on illegal immigration [snip]

Univision Town Hall, March 28, 2011: ‘The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws.’

Question: Mr. President, my question will be as follows: With an executive order, could you be able to stop deportations of the students? And if that’s so, that links to another of the questions that we have received through univision.com. We have received hundreds, thousand, all related to immigration and the students. Kay Tomar through Univision.com told us — I’m reading — “What if at least you grant temporary protective status, TPS, to undocumented students? If the answer is yes, when? And if no, why not?”

Obama: Well, first of all, temporary protective status historically has been used for special circumstances where you have immigrants to this country who are fleeing persecution in their countries, or there is some emergency situation in their native land that required them to come to the United States. So it would not be appropriate to use that just for a particular group that came here primarily, for example, because they were looking for economic opportunity.

With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed — and I know that everybody here at Bell is studying hard so you know that we’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws.

There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.

Question: Now I know that you have reduced, this is another concern on Twitter, the number of deportations of non-criminals. However, in 2012 more than 184,000 non-criminals were deported. In the spirit of your push for immigration reform, would you consider a moratorium on deportations of non-criminals? Remember, these are your words: “This is not about policy. It’s about people.”

Obama: Well, I think it is important to remind everybody that, as I said I think previously, and I’m not a king. I am the head of the executive branch of government. I’m required to follow the law. And that’s what we’ve done. But what I’ve also said is, let’s make sure that we’re applying the law in a way that takes into account people’s humanity. That’s the reason that we moved forward on deferred action. Within the confines of the law we said, we have some discretion in terms of how we apply this law. The same is true with respect to the kinds of the length of time that people have to spend outside of the country when their spouses are already here for example.

So we’re making some changes there. But there are still going to be stories that are heartbreaking with respect to deportations until we get comprehensive immigration reform. That’s one of the reasons I think it’s so important for us to go ahead and get this action done. And keep in mind that if we’re able to say, at the end of this year, or maybe even before the end of the summer, that we’ve gotten comprehensive immigration reform done, then that then empowers me to deal with many of these issues in a way that I think, to allow the more specific issues that a lot of people I think would like to see resolved.

Google Hangout, Feb. 14, 2013: ‘I’m not the emperor of the United States’

Question: Your administration has deported a record high number, 1.5 million, of undocumented immigrants, more than your predecessor. And I know your administration took some steps last year to protect unintended undocumented immigrants from being deported. However many people say those efforts were not enough. What I’d like to know is what you’re going to do now, and until the time that immigration reform is passed, to insure that more people aren’t being deported and families are not being broken apart.

Obama: Well, look Jackie, this is something I’ve struggled with throughout my presidency. The problem is that you know I’m the president of the United States. I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed, and Congress right now has not changed what I consider to be a broken immigration system.

And what that means is that we have certain obligations to enforce the laws that are in place, even if we think that in many cases the results may be tragic. And what we have been able to do is to make sure that we’re focusing our enforcement resources on criminals — as opposed to somebody who’s here, just trying to work and look after their families.

What we have tried to do is administratively reduce the burdens and hardships on families being separated. And what we’ve done, obviously, is pass the deferred action which made sure that the dream, uh, uh dreamers, young people who were brought here and think of themselves as Americans, are American except for their papers, that they’re not deported.

Having said all that, we’ve got to stretch our administrative flexibility as much as we can. And that’s why making sure we get comprehensive immigration reform done is so important.

Interview with Noticias Telmundo, Sept. 17, 2013: ‘There is a path to get this done and that is through Congress.’

Question: Won’t you at least consider unilaterally freezing the deportations for parents of deferred-action kids?

Obama: Here’s the problem that I have, Jose, and I have said this consistently. My job in the executive branch is to carry out the laws that are passed. Congress has said, here’s the law when it comes to those who are undocumented, and they allocate a whole bunch of money for enforcement. What I have been able to do is make a legal argument that I think is absolutely right, which is that given the resources we have, we can’t do everything that Congress has asked us to do, what we can do is then carve out the DREAM Act folks….

But if we start broadening that, then essentially, I would be ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally. So that’s not an option. I do get a little worried that advocates of immigration reform start losing heart and immediately thinking, well, somehow there’s an out here—that if Congress doesn’t act, we will just have the president sign something and that will take care of it, and we won’t have to worry about it. What I have said is that there is a path to get this done and that is through Congress.”

Why is Barack Obama so desperate that he will emit his illegal amnesty for illegal immigration executive order? What else can he do when even dumbass Donna Brazille says, along with other Dems to Obama: You broke our party. You bet your dumb ass Donna, on Obama, and now you’ve fallen and you can’t get up.

Obama’s illegal immigration amnesty will not help. The white working class will flee even further away from Obama Dimocrats and to the Republicans. Black Americans will turn away from Bill Cosby rape allegations and realize that Obama is the cause of their pain.

President Barack Obama once declared that an influx of illegal immigrants will harm “the wages of blue-collar Americans” and “put strains on an already overburdened safety net.”

“[T]here’s no denying that many blacks share the same anxieties as many whites about the wave of illegal immigration flooding our Southern border—a sense that what’s happening now is fundamentally different from what has gone on before,” then-Senator Obama wrote in his 2006 autobiography, “The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.”

”Not all these fears are irrational,” he wrote.

“The number of immigrants added to the labor force every year is of a magnitude not seen in this country for over a century,” Obama noted. “If this huge influx of mostly low-skill workers provides some benefits to the economy as a whole—especially by keeping our workforce young, in contrast to an increasingly geriatric Europe and Japan—it also threatens to depress further the wages of blue-collar Americans and put strains on an already overburdened safety net.”

Things will get worse for Obama and Obama Dimocrats. Barack Obama is 100% correct when he said “The problem is that you know I’m the president of the United States.” You don’t need to hear that stuff about not being emperor. If Obama were an emperor, he would be a naked one.

About these ads
How Eisenhower solved illegal border crossings from Mexico
By John Dillin JULY 6, 2006
WASHINGTON — George W. Bush isn’t the first Republican president to face a full-blown immigration crisis on the US-Mexican border.

Fifty-three years ago, when newly elected Dwight Eisenhower moved into the White House, America’s southern frontier was as porous as a spaghetti sieve. As many as 3 million illegal migrants had walked and waded northward over a period of several years for jobs in California, Arizona, Texas, and points beyond.

President Eisenhower cut off this illegal traffic. He did it quickly and decisively with only 1,075 United States Border Patrol agents – less than one-tenth of today’s force. The operation is still highly praised among veterans of the Border Patrol.

Recommended: Could you pass a US citizenship test?
Although there is little to no record of this operation in Ike’s official papers, one piece of historic evidence indicates how he felt. In 1951, Ike wrote a letter to Sen. William Fulbright (D) of Arkansas. The senator had just proposed that a special commission be created by Congress to examine unethical conduct by government officials who accepted gifts and favors in exchange for special treatment of private individuals.

TEST YOUR KNOWLEDGE Could you pass a US citizenship test?

PHOTOS OF THE DAY Photos of the day 02/08
General Eisenhower, who was gearing up for his run for the presidency, said “Amen” to Senator Fulbright’s proposal. He then quoted a report in The New York Times, highlighting one paragraph that said: “The rise in illegal border-crossing by Mexican ‘wetbacks’ to a current rate of more than 1,000,000 cases a year has been accompanied by a curious relaxation in ethical standards extending all the way from the farmer-exploiters of this contraband labor to the highest levels of the Federal Government.”

Years later, the late Herbert Brownell Jr., Eisenhower’s first attorney general, said in an interview with this writer that the president had a sense of urgency about illegal immigration when he took office.

America “was faced with a breakdown in law enforcement on a very large scale,” Mr. Brownell said. “When I say large scale, I mean hundreds of thousands were coming in from Mexico [every year] without restraint.”

Although an on-and-off guest-worker program for Mexicans was operating at the time, farmers and ranchers in the Southwest had become dependent on an additional low-cost, docile, illegal labor force of up to 3 million, mostly Mexican, laborers.

According to the Handbook of Texas Online, published by the University of Texas at Austin and the Texas State Historical Association, this illegal workforce had a severe impact on the wages of ordinary working Americans. The Handbook Online reports that a study by the President’s Commission on Migratory Labor in Texas in 1950 found that cotton growers in the Rio Grande Valley, where most illegal aliens in Texas worked, paid wages that were “approximately half” the farm wages paid elsewhere in the state.

Profits from illegal labor led to the kind of corruption that apparently worried Eisenhower. Joseph White, a retired 21-year veteran of the Border Patrol, says that in the early 1950s, some senior US officials overseeing immigration enforcement “had friends among the ranchers,” and agents “did not dare” arrest their illegal workers.

Walt Edwards, who joined the Border Patrol in 1951, tells a similar story. He says: “When we caught illegal aliens on farms and ranches, the farmer or rancher would often call and complain [to officials in El Paso]. And depending on how politically connected they were, there would be political intervention. That is how we got into this mess we are in now.”

Bill Chambers, who worked for a combined 33 years for the Border Patrol and the then-called US Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), says politically powerful people are still fueling the flow of illegals.

During the 1950s, however, this “Good Old Boy” system changed under Eisenhower – if only for about 10 years.

In 1954, Ike appointed retired Gen. Joseph “Jumpin’ Joe” Swing, a former West Point classmate and veteran of the 101st Airborne, as the new INS commissioner.

Influential politicians, including Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D) of Texas and Sen. Pat McCarran (D) of Nevada, favored open borders, and were dead set against strong border enforcement, Brownell said. But General Swing’s close connections to the president shielded him – and the Border Patrol – from meddling by powerful political and corporate interests.

One of Swing’s first decisive acts was to transfer certain entrenched immigration officials out of the border area to other regions of the country where their political connections with people such as Senator Johnson would have no effect.

Then on June 17, 1954, what was called “Operation Wetback” began. Because political resistance was lower in California and Arizona, the roundup of aliens began there. Some 750 agents swept northward through agricultural areas with a goal of 1,000 apprehensions a day. By the end of July, over 50,000 aliens were caught in the two states. Another 488,000, fearing arrest, had fled the country.

By mid-July, the crackdown extended northward into Utah, Nevada, and Idaho, and eastward to Texas.

By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas, and an estimated 500,000 to 700,000 illegals had left the Lone Star State voluntarily.

Unlike today, Mexicans caught in the roundup were not simply released at the border, where they could easily reenter the US. To discourage their return, Swing arranged for buses and trains to take many aliens deep within Mexico before being set free.

Tens of thousands more were put aboard two hired ships, the Emancipation and the Mercurio. The ships ferried the aliens from Port Isabel, Texas, to Vera Cruz, Mexico, more than 500 miles south.

The sea voyage was “a rough trip, and they did not like it,” says Don Coppock, who worked his way up from Border Patrolman in 1941 to eventually head the Border Patrol from 1960 to 1973.

Mr. Coppock says he “cannot understand why [President] Bush let [today’s] problem get away from him as it has. I guess it was his compassionate conservatism, and trying to please [Mexican President] Vincente Fox.”

There are now said to be 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens in the US. Of the Mexicans who live here, an estimated 85 percent are here illegally.

Border Patrol vets offer tips on curbing illegal immigration
One day in 1954, Border Patrol agent Walt Edwards picked up a newspaper in Big Spring, Texas, and saw some startling news. The government was launching an all-out drive to oust illegal aliens from the United States.

The orders came straight from the top, where the new president, Dwight Eisenhower, had put a former West Point classmate, Gen. Joseph Swing, in charge of immigration enforcement.

General Swing’s fast-moving campaign soon secured America’s borders – an accomplishment no other president has since equaled. Illegal migration had dropped 95 percent by the late 1950s.

Several retired Border Patrol agents who took part in the 1950s effort, including Mr. Edwards, say much of what Swing did could be repeated today.

“Some say we cannot send 12 million illegals now in the United States back where they came from. Of course we can!” Edwards says.

Donald Coppock, who headed the Patrol from 1960 to 1973, says that if Swing and Ike were still running immigration enforcement, “they’d be on top of this in a minute.”

William Chambers, another ’50s veteran, agrees. “They could do a pretty good job” sealing the border.

Edwards says: “When we start enforcing the law, these various businesses are, on their own, going to replace their [illegal] workforce with a legal workforce.”

While Congress debates building a fence on the border, these veterans say other actions should have higher priority.

1. End the current practice of taking captured Mexican aliens to the border and releasing them. Instead, deport them deep into Mexico, where return to the US would be more costly.

2. Crack down hard on employers who hire illegals. Without jobs, the aliens won’t come.

3. End “catch and release” for non-Mexican aliens. It is common for illegal migrants not from Mexico to be set free after their arrest if they promise to appear later before a judge. Few show up.

The Patrol veterans say enforcement could also be aided by a legalized guest- worker program that permits Mexicans to register in their country for temporary jobs in the US. Eisenhower’s team ran such a program. It permitted up to 400,000 Mexicans a year to enter the US for various agriculture jobs that lasted for 12 to 52 weeks.

It only took 6 loooooooooooong years and the loss of the Congress to convince Barazilnut that she and her DNC cums effed up with the election in 2008, and the fraud she thought they could control was just stupid enough to destroy their party.

Amnesty for 5000 illegals will cause more Americans to become even poorer, and herds of new illegals will come rushing over the border.

President Barack Obama will finally be making public tomorrow night what his plan is to overhaul immigration. However, while his primetime speech will postpone part of the 15th annual Latin Grammys, it will not be covered by most of the Big 4 – if any of them.

The administration announced today that POTUS will be speaking live from the White House at 8 PM ET on Thursday. ABC has the fall finale for Grey’s Anatomy on at that time while CBS has ratings powerhouse The Big Bang Theory, NBC has reality show The Biggest Loser and Fox has Bones. As of right now, three of those networks will not see any changes in their November sweep schedules due to the speech.

While Obama’s speech will be seen on their cable news siblings, Fox and NBC are not carrying it live on their broadcast networks tomorrow night. CNN, along with Fox News and MSNBC, will be showing the speech live. A CBS News division spokesperson says the network will also not be showing Obama’s approximately 15-minute address on Thursday night. The broadcast networks were not asked for time by the administration, sources tell me. The time zone difference will see NBC, CBS as well as ABC adding coverage of Obama’s immigration speech to the West Coast versions of their national nightly news shows.

Jon Stewart finally took on Jonathan Gruber‘s comments about Obamacare and stupid Americans tonight, and said that the deception he talks about on the part of Democrats does sound “pretty slimy.”

Stewart joined the conservative piling-on of Gruber by mocking him as a “super-egghead” and a “jerk,” before showing exactly how essential he was to getting the law passed. He showed both video of President Obama touting Gruber’s work and Nancy Pelosi denying knowing Gruber, in video right before additional video of her mentioning Gruber by name.

So this is “pretty lousy” for the Democrats, as Stewart put it. And just to stick the knife in even further, the Supreme Court is going to hear a case that could dismantle the law. Stewart reacted to that news with, well, a string of profanities.

From the standpoint of sound business strategy, Obamacare and Amnesty Without Borders (my name for it) are huge projects adopted to secure a cheap headline and to fulfill an improvident promise. They were adopted without effective planning and more significant than that no consensus—just shoved down people’s throats. As with anything complex the devil is in the detail, the unintended consequences are profound and successful implementation depend on coordination and cooperation across the board. But more than that the strategy itself in not a political strategy, it has a political component but the main components are legal, economic, and cultural. These plans will not work because the groundwork for success has not been laid. But the American People, who forget nothing and learn nothing will be stuck with the bill.

Ofuctard strikes again. He inappropriately made the 2014 elections about his policies, thinking he was so much smarter than naysayers, and lost. Now this tantrum. Who could be telling him this is anything but a disaster for all concerned?

I think as soon as the POS announces he is giving away the store, all should immediately email and call their Congressperson and demand immediate cessation of all foreign aid to South American countries.

Obviously if there citizens are coming here, the foreign aid is not being used as intended. How fast do you think the leaders of the South American countries will shut down there borders with “no mas dinero de Estados Unidos”?

If we are going to have to pay for them here, shut the spigot off going there.

The Supreme Court is going to hear a case that could dismantle the law.
———–
As a well known arbitrator told me more than 30 years ago, I am not in the business of putting companies like yours out of business but if your company wrote a contract it could not live with then don’t look to me to save you. Is Roberts capable of telling that to the Obama Administration? Does a cat bark? Just remember they put water between his legs before.

So what can this lameduck Congress do to stop His Majesty from issuing his amnesty? With the Senate still under Reid’s control until January, not much really. The INS and the border patrol will take their orders from him and look the other way while the illegal immigrants invade the southern states without opposition.

“WH: Obama Being Called Emperor Is ‘Criticism the President Wears with a Badge of Honor”
______________

Screws are getting looser in the Obama WH. Who does the WH think it’s impressing (favorably) with this attitude. Even the most deluded Kook / Obama-nut should not consider this a positive. The Dims apparently fail to see that the other party occasionally wins, just as it did in the midterms last month. And, the bamboozling, rule breaking, liberty taking, and issuing of orders will come back to haunt them. Harry Reid will find this out the hard way in January.

The Kooks and other Obama-loving delusional progs may think it’s a fine idea for America to have a president who is flattered by being referred to as Emperor, now. But, should a Republican win the WH, and assume the role of emperor, they will be singing a different tune.

Once the position of illegals was fixed at the bottom of the list, below all those who applied legally prior to that date, I would take the first thousand and dovetail them with the first thousand of new applicants who applied after that date, ad seriatum. I would always favor legals over illegals, even if the legals applied later. Get my drift? This is all about not rewarding illegal violation of our sovereignty. How we deal with the impact upon labor markets and wage depression, I have no answer for. It seems to me that working people are now at risk as never before, and the numbskulls who head the unions should be tarred and feathered for supporting this jackass, and not seeing this flagrant assault on their members by big business coming at them like an American Flyer freight train. The first case I had was a wrongful death suit by a 19 year old girl who was run down by a freight train at a remote tressle where you could not hear the train coming. THIS TRAIN however has been spewing black clouds, sounding its whistle and the tracks are shaking but the stupid ass American People and the even stupider union bosses have failed to see it coming.

Conservatives say that Republican leaders, including House Speaker John Boehner and incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, will be “complicit” in President Barack Obama’s planned executive amnesty if they don’t pull out all the stops to block him.

They warn that chaos is around the corner if that’s how it goes down, even though they’d much rather have Republican leaders fight the president alongside them.

“Fight or be complicit in lawlessness,” Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton told Breitbart News, is the message to congressional GOP leaders on Obama’s amnesty.

If Republicans move forward with the plan from House Appropriations Committee chairman Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY) to fund the entire government—including Obama’s executive amnesty, which the president is set to announce on Thursday night—in an omnibus spending bill, a Senate GOP aide told Breitbart News conservatives will spread chaos across Washington.

“If Obama announces executive amnesty and the House passes an omnibus with no language blocking it, there will be no Senate vote, because conservatives will burn down the Capitol,” the aide said. When asked to clarify if he was serious they’d burn the building to the ground—or if he was speaking metaphorically—the aide said “open rebellion.”

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), one of many Republicans conference-wide who will be helping lead the charge to force Boehner to stop Obama, told Breitbart News that Republicans must stand and fight—and that they can and must win.

“Even though around three-quarters of voters this year opposed the idea of executive amnesty, President Obama is apparently going to announce his new royal amnesty decree before going to Las Vegas to promote it,” Gohmert said, adding:

Perhaps ‘Caesar’s Palace’ is an appropriate venue for the American Caesar’s regal proclamation that gambles away jobs for Americans. As an equal branch of government where legislation must originate, Congress must either fight it or we will be complicit in this amnesty as royal subjects and the democratic republic will be gone. Now is the time that Republicans need to stand strong for the principles for which the majority of American voters sent them to Washington. Dissatisfaction with the White House and Senate over amnesty issues was a significant reason the American people added Republican seats in the House and Republican control of the Senate. Congress must protect the Constitution and the American public from such a decree from Mt. Olympus that declares a state of lawlessness in America.

Elsewhere, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) wrote for Politico that Obama is “not a monarch” and Congress can’t allow him to succeed:

The Constitution designs a system of checks and balances for our nation, and executive amnesty for immigrants here illegally unilaterally decreed from the White House would seriously undermine the rule of law. Our founders repeatedly warned about the dangers of unlimited power within the executive branch; Congress should heed those words as the President threatens to grant amnesty to millions of people who have come to our country illegally.

Incoming Senate Budget Committee chairman Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) said that Congress should fund the government while blocking funding for this “unconstitutional” act by Obama:
President Obama previously said he could not issue an executive amnesty because ‘I’m the President of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed.’ Well, apparently we now have an ‘Emperor of the United States.’ President Obama’s immigration order would provide illegal immigrants with the exact benefits Congress has repeatedly rejected: Social Security numbers, photo IDs and work permits—which will allow them to now take jobs directly from struggling Americans in every occupation. Congress must not allow this unconstitutional action. That means Congress should fund the government while ensuring that no funds can be spent on this unlawful purpose.
George Rasley, the editor of Viguerie’s ConservativeHQ, told Breitbart News Republicans have a mandate from the voters to stop Obama.

“Obama’s extra-constitutional attempt to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens flies in the face of the results of the 2014 wave,” Rasley said. “If the Nov. 4 election was a demand for anything, it was a demand by grassroots American voters for a return to constitutional government.”

“Heritage Action welcomes creative thinking from congressional Republicans so long as creativity is not a synonym for inaction or delay,” Holler said. “Congress must use every tool at their disposal to block the President’s executive amnesty. A long-term funding bill is little more than a blank check for amnesty.”

Glyn Wright, the executive director of Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum, told Breitbart News that since immigration is such an important issue Republicans need to fight this and block Obama. “Immigration is the issue that defines all other issues, and the American people know it,” Wright said. “That’s why the President waited until after the midterm elections to take this action, and why voters gave the GOP a historical majority in the House and control of the Senate. If the Republicans want to be seen as viable and worthy of the power they have been given, they must stop this unprecedented and lawless act.”
Schlafly herself added that Obama is offending Americans with the executive order.
“Every action Obama is taking on amnesty is illegal, unconstitutional and offensive to the majority of the American voters,” Schlafly said.
A letter being circulated around the conservative movement and sent to all Republican members of Congress—signed by top conservative luminaries, including Ronald Reagan’s Attorney General Ed Meese, former Rep. David McIntosh, and more—calls on Republicans to use the power of the purse to block Obama’s amnesty. Other signers of the letter include Heritage Action CEO Mike Needham, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins, ForAmerica chairman Brent Bozell, RedState’s Erick Erickson, Marjorie Dannenfelser of Susan B. Anthony List, former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli of the Senate Conservatives Fund, Tea Party Patriots’ Jenny Beth Martin, Let Freedom Ring’s Colin Hanna, Eagle Forum’s Phyllis Schlafly, ConservativeHQ’s Richard Viguerie, Conservative Leadership PAC’s Morton Blackwell, former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, former Reagan advisers Becky Norton Dunlop and Kenneth Cribb, Jr., Al Regnery, former Rep. Bob McEwen, and others.

“Passage of a long term Continuing Resolution (CR) would rob newly elected members of the ability to begin making spending decisions and would remove a key leverage point they will have with President Obama to further pursue our agenda,” they write.

“Conservatives will be watching these next few weeks very closely,” they add. “We urge you to begin earning the trust placed in you by passing a short term CR, stopping President Obama’s planned executive amnesty, going home, and returning in January to pursue the agenda that the American people sent you here to enact.”

Blackwell, the former Ohio Secretary of State, and others from that group have drafted a one-page resolution they hope the House will pass this week condemning Obama’s amnesty plans.

The Concurrent Resolution Of Congress they are pushing for a vote on cites Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution which reads: “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.” The resolution reads:

And whereas it is the Constitutional right and duty of the Congress of the United States to exercise vigilance in protecting this sovereign legislative power from any encroachments by other branches of government or any other source whatsoever; And whereas Barack Obama, the President of the United States, may issue a purported Executive Order that has the effect of changing the law and policy of the United States relative to the status of millions of illegal aliens currently residing within the United States; And whereas his argument that he must act because the Congress has not acted regarding the status has no valid standing in law under the Constitution.

The resolution concludes by saying that Congress considers whatever executive action about to be taken “null and void.”

“It is the sense of Congress that this purported Executive Order is a usurpation of the legislative power vested solely in the Congress of the United States and, as such, is null and void,” the resolution says. “And be it further resolved that the Congress of the United States will use all of its Constitutional powers, particularly the power of the purse, to prevent the implementation of the provisions of said Executive Order.”

Gaston Mooney, the executive director of the Conservative Review, told Breitbart News that when Obama does the executive order, Republicans should not allow a single dime of taxpayer money to be spent implementing it.

“Republicans campaigned and overwhelmingly won on the promise to stop Obama’s agenda; now we will see whether or not they will make good on that promise or if they try and propose a bait and switch, hoping the American people won’t notice,” Mooney said in an email. “Stopping Obama’s lawless amnesty starts first with Republicans standing up.”

The three things Conservative Review is working to ensure happen are that Republicans use the upcoming budget fight—and they believe that there shouldn’t even be a short-term continuing resolution that funds the executive amnesty until the newly elected Senate GOP majority takes over—to stop him, that they block his judicial nominations and they fight him from governorships across the country.

Conservatives are making headway in this battle to get Republicans to fight Obama over this. On Wednesday, Reps. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and Mike McCaul (R-TX)—the chairmen, respectively, of the House Judiciary and House Homeland Security committees—wrote to Obama promising Republicans will use every power they have to stop this if he goes through with it. They write:

Instead of proceeding with ill-advised executive action, we implore you to work with Congress to enact legislation to address our broken immigration system. We strongly urge you to respect the Constitution and abandon any unconstitutional, unilateral executive actions on immigration. Let’s secure the border, enforce our immigration laws in the interior of the United States, and build a broad consensus for immigration reform. Otherwise, as the chairmen of the committees with oversight over border security and our nation’s immigration laws, we will be forced to use the tools afforded to Congress by the Constitution to stop your administration from successfully carrying out your plan.

McConnell has said that “it’s always appropriate” for Congress “use the power of the purse.” He adds he expects House Republicans to soon deliver a short-term continuing resolution to fund the government until early next year when his Senate Republicans take over.

“Yeah, we expect the House to go first,” McConnell said. “And I anticipate supporting whatever the House sends over. And so, I think we’re going to wait and see how the House handles this…But our goal is to fund the government.”

Even Boehner has gotten a bit tougher with his rhetoric, though he’s still not committing to using all options–such as blocking funding—to stop Obama.

“If ‘Emperor Obama’ ignores the American people and announces an amnesty plan that he himself has said over and over again exceeds his Constitutional authority, he will cement his legacy of lawlessness and ruin the chances for Congressional action on this issue – and many others,” Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said in an email to reporters on Wednesday that circulated a post on the Speaker’s website that references 22 separate times Obama himself said he doesn’t have the authority to do this.

In 1968, I learned to shoot a M-1 rifle. This occurred at the Marine base located across the Severn River from Annapolis at the end of Chesapeake Bay. The officer in charge of that base was a major who had performed heroic acts in South Viet Nam, for which he received our nation’s highest honor. And to an impressionable plebe he seemed like the promise and fulfillment of everything I hoped to become. He had a chest full of medals but he only wore two: the medal of honor and the purple heart. At that point in my life, he was the essence of what it meant to be a hero. I saw a picture of him five years ago, and today he looks like an ordinary old man. It could well have been that when I first laid eyes on him, he was an ordinary young man. But not to the eyes of a teenager like I was at the time.

I have no doubt that he was a hero in that limited sense. He acted heroically and in the process he literally saved the lives of those in his command. An arbitrator I know whom I have talked about before on this blog was also a hero in that limited sense. He was an Army ranger in Korea and one two silver stars and he spent time in a communist prisoner of war camp where he was tortured and urinated upon by the Chinese guards in an effort to break him. His heroism was limited to saving the lives of those in his company, as well.

Saving this nation however is a much more important task because it involves millions of people and a posterity which has no vote. When I think of a real hero, apart from Washington, the two names that come to mind are Jefferson and Madison. One was the product of the French Enlightenment, Locke and the rights of man. That would be Jefferson, who gave us the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. The other was the consummate lawyer, the classical scholar, the first legal realist who gave us the road map to keeping the worst aspects of human nature in check, by pitting ambitious people against ambitious people so liberty could survive, rather than allowing power to menasticize in a single imperial executive who would practice tyranny in the name of benevolent dictatship. That document is the constitution and the division of power between the three branches, the federal vs state division etc. were the institutional foundations.

Those are the structures which Obama and the New York cabal and thousands of ignorant people in this nation seek to tear down. In so doing, they guarantee the demise of this nation, and our quality of life. This is why, at this moment in time, we must do everything possible to defeat democrats. It is not that the Republican Party is good. It is simply that they are the lesser evil, whereas Obama and his entourage represent the fast track to hell. They advocate and drag us, and the rest of the world, down one of those paths which lead only to despair and from which no one ever returns. The recent announcement that the major recruiter for ISIS in Pakistan is one of 10,000 examples. If Madison and Jefferson were the heroes of the ages, then surely Obama and the big media New York cabal are their opposite number, i.e. the villains of the ages. Trouble is, too few people have figured this out.

That ISIS recruiter was one of the people that Obama personally released from Guantanamo. He was one of those exchanged for Berghdal. This is exactly what was predicted at the time. But Obama, being consummately evil, does not care.

Richard Fernadez quotes from an article written by a progressive writer claiming that the republicans who are not racists despise Obama because his brain is so big and he is thinking so much in big picture terms that that they cannot appreciate his brilliance the way that progressives like this writer do. With the middle east collapsing, with Putin on the march, with China expanding its military influence, with Iran on the verge of having the bomb, the progressive faith in Obama is counter intuitive. More likely, he fits the definition of a flake who excels in making bizarre errors and convoluted crises–like the Russian expression, a fool with energy. He makes choices which are impossible to explain and discovers solutions which are at right angles to logic and common sense. The product of a totally different evolutionary chain, as Dunn at American Thinker has noted. It is hardly surprising that a godless progressive would be attracted to someone like this. It is easy to build a secular religion around him, which is exactly what they have done. To equate Obama’s fuckups with brilliance is absurd.

He’s so brilliant, yet every time there’s a screw up in his administration, he didn’t know about until he read it in the paper or saw it on CNN.

“He’s thinking about the big picture”
_____________

WTF big picture would that be? How many holes of golf he plans to play? Where he’ll go on his next vacay? How to look even weaker and more ridiculous to the ME, Russia, etc.? Which of the ayatollah’s butt cheeks to kiss next? How to draw a red line that just once, doesn’t get crossed. WTF is the constitution, anyway, and what does it have to do with anything? Just how “flexible” Putin wants him to be? How to incite racial conflict on an even larger scale?

If the progs really believe Barack is brilliant, they have such a distorted view of reality and are so delusional it’s pointless to expect them to see the truth

He advocates using other congressional powers to bear on Obama to rescind this illegal action:

First, Congress would use its advise and consent power to not move ANY appointments by Obama to the bench or to government agencies except those involving national security.

Second, Congress would use its appropriation powers to break down the omnibus appropriation bill normally tendered to Congress for funding into a series of individual appropriation bills for each agency, starting with defense. Those bills would be approved and submitted to the president for signature. But the bill for the Department of Homeland security which is charged with implementing this illegal amnesty order would be passed with a poison pill rider, which Obama could veto without shutting down government. The net result would be no funding. And the governors would have to take a similar position. That would produce fireworks initially, but if the Republicans held firm the adminstration would be compelled to come around.

Simultaneously, the Republican could file an action in federal court to enjoin this illegal action. Ted did not mention this but it should happen independently, with Turley acting as chief counsel, and possibly Ted Olsen. In other words, there should be a legal strategy to supplement the legislative strategy, particularly if we reach a point where the parties need a third party to settle their dispute, because it has become too disruptive to the nation and the parties need a backstop.

freespirit
November 20, 2014 at 1:32 am
“Cannot appreciate his brilliance….”
————
Well, you know freespirit, I agree with you. But bear in mind who we are dealing with here–progressives. This is the new term for what we used to call communists. They are alot like the small pox virus. And immunologist was asked whether he would eliminate the last small pox virus on earth and thereby eliminate a certain type of life. He hesitated. But I would have no qualms myself. If the communists cannot be re educated, I would gladly send them to Siberia.

NewsBusters reports that NBC Nightly News has failed to air a single story on the saga of Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber and his parade of outrageous remarks about the advantage of a lack of transparency in the health care law and the “stupidity of the American voter.”

freespirit
November 20, 2014 at 8:13 am
Further evidence that NBC News is anything but:
————-
Big media is selective in what they censor.

Again, this is the New York cabal that decides what they report and what they ignore

They are between a hardplace

On the one hand, they decided now was the time for our first black president, but having decided that this sociopath Obama was going to be the guy, they assumed the risk that he might fail, and they are determined to prevent that.

On the other hand, the sheer incompetence and direct attack upon the constitution by the very man they deified now challenges their bona fides as a news organization if they fail to report it.

Hence the short of it is, there will come a point where censorship no longer works.

At that point, their default position becomes obvious: they will conspire with the Obama White House to promote its talking points, ignore the cause of the confrontation, and focus on the adverse effects. They will renew the charges of racism and fan the flames of it, as they are doing now in Ferguson, and as they did before in Miami, while ignoring black on white crime.

If you were to ask me whether a putative news industry that cannot bring itself to report the truth is an industry worth saving my answer to that question would be no. If they are so afraid to admit this is the wrong black president, then they should stop fighting the truth and find the right one.

In the final analysis, the New York cabal is afraid to face the truth that it was their own bias, and betrayal of their profession which put the nation and the world in the dire straits we find ourselves in today. In sum, we need to know who these people are who are tearing apart our social fabric and putting our future at risk. That is the root of the problem.

The further problem that the New York cabal has at this point is they have no spokesmen or spokeswomen capable of articulating the conservative point of view on this constitutional crisis. The reason is they have engaged in the practical equivalent of ethnic cleansing vis a vis anyone who seeks to report the truth about Obama. Indeed a long list of names come to mind, such as Pat Buchanan, Lou Dobbs, Lisa Myers, and obviously Sharyl Attkisson. In addition, they have created a culture where it is contra bonus mores to say anything critical of the man they installed, and a climate of fear rules those organizations at this point. The confluence of these factors, plus an intransigent unwillingness to admit they were wrong about this guy, and far from advancing the cause of racial harmony has divided the society, will make it impossible for them to acknowledge the seriousness of Obama’s attack on the constitution and the merits of the Republican position. The message to the public should be this. If you want to know the truth, avoid big media.

Following the gruesome synagogue killing of four ultra-Orthodox men Tuesday, Israel revives a controversial home destruction policy. Home destruction was abandoned a decade ago, but spiraling violence that has claimed 11 lives prompted Israeli officials to revive it. Wednesday, Israeli forces destroyed the home of a Palestinian man who killed two pedestrians with his car. According to reports from the region, fear now grips Jerusalem.

Seems to me, if the “Israeli forces” knew who the man was, they should have brought him to justice and maybe imprisoned or executed him. Instead, they make the man’s family pay, and whatever happens to the man himself?

Soon after the revival of the destruction policy (plans to revive the policy were announced Monday, prior to the synagogue attack) reports questioned whether it would lessen tensions. However, as Palestinian leaders blamed Israeli policies for the escalation in violence, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu became resolute and vowed more demolitions.

Netanyahu promised Tuesday, after the synagogue attack, that the homes of Palestinians linked to recent attacks on Israeli civilians would be razed. Security forces­ made good on that order early Wednesday, when squads of police and demolition experts descended on the fourth-story apartment of a Palestinian man involved in the October attack. The attacker, Abd al-Rahman al-Shaludi, was fatally shot by police at the scene.

Israeli police hustled out members of the extended Shaludi family, and they watched from across the street as security forces­ knocked down walls, smashed windows and doors, and tore up the tile floors. The home-razing tactic was common a decade ago, but Israel has rarely used it in recent years….

“How many houses have the Israelis knocked down? Has this prevented a single thing?” he asked. All it does, the imam said, “is make the people more angry.”

And more about the fear of a religious war in Jerusalem, among Jews, Muslims and Christians:

So what can this lameduck Congress do to stop His Majesty from issuing his amnesty?…

Unfortunately, you’re right; but it’s not just the lame duck Congress but the next one too. Everything depends on the Republicans getting their shit together, plus cooperating with the Democrats. It’s way beyond their possibilities. The stalemate will continue.

As far as the amnesty goes, the potus has the power to pardon and no Congress can stop him.

As the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem reports, more than 650 Palestinian homes were either sealed or demolished from 2001 until 2005, leaving the families of attackers homeless. The policy was discontinued after an army committee determined that razing homes not only failed to deter attacks, but also stoked Palestinian hatred of Israel. House demolitions, declared legal by Israeli courts, were also criticized internationally by the United Nations and others for smacking of collective punishment for family members who may have had no connection to the attacks.

Senate Threatens New Sanctions Ahead of ‘Weak and Dangerous’ Deal with Iran
Senate to Obama: You are handing Iran a nuclear weapon

VIENNA—The U.S. Senate is warning the Obama administration that it is poised to veto a final nuclear deal with the Iranians and impose harsher sanctions on Tehran, according to a letter sent late Wednesday to President Obama.

Nearly half of the Senate has signed onto a letter promising to reject a “weak and dangerous deal” with Iran as final negotiations in Vienna approach their Nov. 24 deadline.

The senators warn that the Obama administration is close to inking a deal that will permit Iran to continue the most controversial aspects of its nuclear program and enable Tehran to build a nuclear weapon in the near future, according to a copy of the letter obtained by the Washington Free Beacon and signed by all 43 Republican senators who backed the Mendendez-Kirk sanctions legislation killed earlier this year by the White House.

The letter was sent to the White House on the heels of forceful comments Wednesday by Iranian leaders insisting that the United States must bow to the country’s “inalienable nuclear rights.”

The senators lash out at Obama for completely ignoring congressional efforts to provide oversight of the deal.

“Your negotiators appear to have disregarded clear expressions from the Senate emphasizing the need for a multi-decade agreements requiring Iran to fully suspend its enrichment and reprocessing activities, to dismantle its illicit nuclear infrastructure, and completely disclose its past work on nuclear weaponization,” the senators wrote to Obama. [snip]

The senators vow to impose new economic sanctions on Iran unless it fully stops all nuclear activities, a call that differs drastically from the Obama administration’s position of allowing Iran to continue enriching uranium. [snip]

The letter also draws a clear line in the sand on the issue of sanctions, promising to prevent the White House from skirting Congress to unilaterally lift sanctions on Tehran. The new Republican-controlled Senate will block Obama’s proposed executive action on this front, according to the letter. [snip]

“Unless the White House genuinely engages with Congress, we see no way that any agreement consisting of your administration’s current proposals to Iran will endure in the 114th Congress and after your presidential term ends.”

All signs indicate that the Obama administration is inching closer to inking “a weak and dangerous deal which will prove unacceptable to the American people,” the senators write. [snip]

The administration is ignoring Iran’s status as the “world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism,” as well as the Islamic Republic’s goal of “perpetuating slaughter in Syria and sowing extremism and instability throughout the region,” the letter states.

Every Obama policy was on the ballot, every single one. Every single Obama policy lost – every single one.

As far as the amnesty goes, the potus has the power to pardon and no Congress can stop him.
————–
You see this as a straight up case of the power to pardon? I think that may be stretching that power beyond the limits of its logic.

Now Playing
Judge Napolitano on Obama playing with ‘constitutional fire’

President Obama will address the nation Thursday night at 8 pm. He is expected to offer some form of limited amnesty to about five million foreign nationals who are currently living illegally in the United States. He will do so by issuing an executive order to federal officials who oversee immigration directing them to undertake a course of action that, if complied with individually by all persons whom he designates as eligible, will cause the federal government to remove the threat of deportation from those who meet the standards he will lay down.

Can he legally do that?

To address that question, we need to start with the principle that a presidential action may be lawful at the same time that it is unconstitutional. The president has the legal power to defer deportations. The power is called prosecutorial discretion. This is a power traditionally recognized as inherent in the presidency that enables him to defer or modify all federal law enforcement.

Without presidential fidelity to the rule of law, we have a king, not a president.

The theory is that the president needs the ability to allocate resources as the changing times, emergent events and public needs may require. Thus, he can, for example, defer prosecuting bank robbers and aggressively pursue drug dealers. That wouldn’t mean that all bank robbers would go free; it would mean that either state prosecutors would pursue them, or they’d wait for trials until the drug kingpins were caught and convicted. But he could set some free if he wished.

The check on the exercise of prosecutorial discretion is gross abuse, which is typically demonstrated by either improper executive motive or effective nullification of law. I don’t know what the president’s motive is. If it is political, I suspect his efforts will backfire. He cannot grant citizenship or the right to vote.

If his motive is humanitarian or moral, I understand him. Under the natural law, people have the right to travel and live wherever they wish. The existence of our natural rights is not conditioned upon the place where our mothers were at the times of our births. And from a free market and historical perspective, immigrants have enhanced the economy as they move up the demographic ladder.

But the president’s behavior has serious constitutional dimensions that go far beyond the motives in his heart, and his oath is to the Constitution, not to his heart.

If the president nullifies deportations on such a grand scale that the effect is the nullification of federal laws, then he has violated his oath “faithfully” to execute his presidential obligations. The Framers required that every president swear to do his job “faithfully” to serve as a reminder to him that his job requires fidelity to the enforcement of laws with which he may disagree. The American people, Congress and the courts need to know we have a president who will enforce the laws, whether he agrees with them in his heart or not. Without presidential fidelity to the rule of law, we have a king, not a president.

By conferring temporary legal status upon foreign nationals who have not achieved it under the law, providing they meet criteria that he will establish, the president affects huge numbers of persons and produces a result that is the opposite of what the law requires. Can the president’s exercise of his prosecutorial discretion constitutionally nullify a federal statute? No. Can the president’s exercise of his prosecutorial discretion effectively rewrite a federal statute? No.

It is unconstitutional for the president to nullify federal law. It is unconstitutional for him to refuse to enforce laws that affect millions of persons and billions of dollars. It is unconstitutional for him to refuse to enforce laws merely because he disagrees with them — particularly laws that pre-existed his presidential oaths. And it is unconstitutional for him to rewrite laws, even if he is doing so to make them more just.

Every president since Dwight D. Eisenhower has deferred some deportations. President Reagan deferred deportations for about 100,000 families of foreign nationals in 1987 under his reading of the congressionally authorized 1986 amnesty law, and President George H.W. Bush did so in 1990 for about 350,000 foreign nationals under his reading of the same law. Each of these was based on a principled public presidential reading of the words and purposes of a federal statute. Obama does not purport to read and interpret the current immigration law; rather, he effectively rewrites it.

What can Congress do?

Congress can pass legislation to invalidate Obama’s executive actions. Yet even if it did so and overrode his certain veto, it has no assurances that Obama would be bound by the new legislation. He refuses to enforce the plain language of well-established and never judicially altered federal statutes. What assurances does Congress have that he would follow any new statutes that he has vetoed and that regulate his behavior?

Is the blanket refusal to enforce federal laws that profoundly affect five million persons — and in the process severely straining the social services of all 50 states — an impeachable offense? The president is playing with constitutional fire, and impeachment is the only constitutional remedy available, short of 25 months of a constitutional conflagration that he has ignited.

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. He joined FNC in January 1998. Judge Napolitano has written seven books on the U.S. Constitution. The most recent is “Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom.” To find out more about Judge Napolitano and to read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit http://www.creators.com.

+ FollowFoxNewsOpinion on Facebook

Advertisement

Opinion Video

Berkeley’s surprising reaction to ISIS and Israeli flags
Play Video

Berkeley’s surprising reaction to ISIS and Israeli flags

Bias Bash: What the media aren’t saying about Gruber
Play Video

Bias Bash: What the media aren’t saying about Gruber

Gretchen’s take: Another example of ‘PC madness’ in US
Play Video

Gretchen’s take: Another example of ‘PC madness’ in US

Gutfeld: You wouldn’t ban surgery, why ban vaping?
Play Video

Gutfeld: You wouldn’t ban surgery, why ban vaping?

Berkeley’s surprising reaction to ISIS and Israeli flags
Play Video

Bias Bash: What the media aren’t saying about Gruber
Play Video

Gretchen’s take: Another example of ‘PC madness’ in US
Play Video

Gutfeld: You wouldn’t ban surgery, why ban vaping?
Play Video

Trending in Opinion
1
Is Obama a president or a king? Playing with constitutional fire

At first glance, the unique looking Strati-EV by Local Motors might appear to be another concept, energy-efficient car. But, the tiny two-seater is fully functional and is made of percent printed material.

If Obama’s position is not HUMANITARIAN because the group in question is already receiving humanitarian aid.

Then it must be POLITICAL, i.e.:

1. to secure political advantage in violation of the rule of law. (Note:the timing alone–after the mid-term and before the Republican majority takes office, after promising to address this issue once they do take office speaks for itself.)

2. to expand the powers of the president in violation of the constitution. (Note: to usurp the powers of the legislature.

Judge Napolitano sees the proper remedy as impeachment for failure to discharge his constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws. Hence it was madness for McConnell to take that remedy off the table. It he did so as an olive branch, he now has his answer. Hence, if he fails to follow the Cruz strategy and still seeks bipartisanship, he will be in bigger trouble with his base than he has with Obama.

I worry about the job, I worry about my marriage, I worry about my children, I worry about my financial future, I worry about my health, I worry about . . . Doesn’t leave time for the average American to follow, much less worry about politics. I just don’t want their side show to take over my circus, and I will get really pissed at whoever causes that to happen.

Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American People—-H.L. Mencken.

The truth is what is going on now can have a profound effect on the job, the children, the financial future, the health(care) even the marriage. But they are myopic. Big media sees to that.

Erickson is convinced that the RINO will cave . . . His days are numbered.

——————-

You people are being played by the GOP. Remember when the GOP wanted to raise the debt ceiling, but claim they would oppose it. They voted to raise it, but then Congress could vote to stop the raise. The President could then veto the stoppage and the debt ceiling would raise. But the GOP could claim they opposed him.

That is happening again. This time it is with amnesty.

The House GOP is going to pass a continuing resolution to fund the government. Then, in January, they will try to defund what they’ve already funded. The President will veto it, but the GOP can say they tried.

They won in a historic wave election against the President with a majority of the public on their side on this issue and they are going to cave.

Already, the House Appropriations Committee has released a statement saying the appropriations process cannot stop the President. The statement reads

The primary agency for implementing the President’s new immigration executive order is the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). This agency is entirely self-funded through the fees it collects on various immigration applications. Congress does not appropriate funds for any of its operations, including the issuance of immigration status or work permits, with the exception of the “E-Verify” program. Therefore, the Appropriations process cannot be used to “de-fund” the agency. The agency has the ability to continue to collect and use fees to continue current operations, and to expand operations as under a new Executive Order, without needing legislative approval by the Appropriations Committee or the Congress, even under a continuing resolution or a government shutdown.

Got that? No appropriation can be made from the federal treasury without Congress’s consent, but they cannot stop this. Sean Davis explains why this is so wrong. But the GOP has Byron York reporting they have a better strategy. That strategy? Exactly as I explained above.

First, the GOP response to Obama’s anticipated order. The only thing Republicans will do in the lame duck session — that is, before they take control of the Senate, and keep control of the House, in January — is to make sure a short-term government funding bill is passed by the time the current one expires on Dec. 11.

Then in January, with the GOP in control — and, presumably, Obama’s edict in hand — Republicans will work on crafting a new spending measure that funds the entire government, with the exception of the particular federal offices that will do the specific work of enforcing Obama’s order.

They fund the government then try to take it all away. They say it is like how they stopped GTMO from being closed. That, however, is completely different. The Democrats ruled the roost then and worked with the GOP. Not only is there no sign that the Democrats will help the GOP now. Signs all point to the Democrats collaborating with the President and supporting his veto.

In other words, the House Republicans are going to fund the President’s amnesty plan and then try to tell you how much they oppose it.

There is an outside possibility that the Webb candidacy will grow legs. If, as appears likely, the RINO caves on the very issue that voters elected him to pursue, and which he promised to pursue, then its over for the GOP. The stand for exactly nothing, because when push comes to shove they are utterly worthless. Thereafter, the RINO will deny conservatives the nomination. That will be the trigger for the base will exit the GOP. Thereafter, the RINO will be on his own, free to win future elections with the millions, billions of RINOs across the country, beyond the Beltway. Meanwhile, the fight between the Clintons and the progressives will intensify, Webb could emerge. The chances of all this happening are no greater than 5% so there is no need for Hillary supporters to worry about that contingency at this point. But it is one possibility out there, and Webb is different from most politicians on the scene—he loves this country and is a man of character–which is the rareist of all traits in the political class.

What will be the Republican response? Is the risk of a government shutdown more dangerous than a transformed America? Will the GOP recognize the dangerous line Obama has crossed, or will they channel Millard Fillmore in response to our modern Calhoun? Will they use the powers the Founders gave them to reign in executive lawlessness, or will they meekly punt the problem to the courts?

You will have you answer when you see what Boehner does when the current appropriation bill runs out on December 11, based on Erickson’s analysis above.
—————-

Obama, Our Modern John C. Calhoun

By Christian Adams

One of the ideas that plunged America into the bloody Civil War was the belief that federal laws could be nullified by those who disagree with them. Senator John C. Calhoun of South Carolina was a chief proponent of the doctrine that Southern states could nullify federal laws if states disagreed with them. In announcing a lawless amnesty edict tonight, President Obama is our modern John C. Calhoun.

Elementary school civics class has taught the same thing for two hundred years: Congress makes the laws, the president enforces the laws, the judiciary interprets the laws. The reason this is so is because individual liberty thrives when government is hobbled by division of power. People live better lives when federal power is stymied.

When President Obama announces that he will be suspending laws to bless the illegal presence of millions of foreigners in the United States, he will have adopted the most basic philosophy of John C. Calhoun: some laws can be tossed aside because his ends justify the lawlessness.

John C. Calhoun
John C. Calhoun

Make no mistake about why Obama wants millions of foreigners to remain in the United States. He told us exactly why in 2008: he aims to “fundamentally transform” America.

One way to transform America is to import populations with cultural and legal traditions foreign to American traditions. Central and South America has a cultural tradition of instability in government, of graft, corruption, and civil strife. People from those countries bring an expectation that the systems are rigged against them, because oftentimes they are.

Obama wants to transform America by transforming who Americans are. Even if these millions are not granted the right to vote (immediately), their children, yet unborn, will be granted it by virtue of being natural-born citizens. Obama is playing the long game.

Obama learned the history of the 20th century: when radical statists take power quickly, openly, and brazenly, Americans will stand in the breach. Whether on the blazing beaches of Saipan, in the Ardennes snow, or in dark alleys in Bucharest, Americans will risk it all. But Americans are less familiar with a slow-moving threat to American values. The long game isn’t as recognizable to us.

The long game is what Putin plays in Eastern Europe, what radical Islam plays everywhere, and what Obama now plays domestically with amnesty. Obama just had to reach back and borrow some ideas from one of the most vociferous defenders of Southern slavery, and nullify laws he took an oath to enforce.

Take some comfort in this: executives acting lawlessly is a transgression as old as human history. Charles I similarly ignored the law when he went so far as to dissolve a Parliament with which he disagreed. When he started running out of money to conduct his wars with France and Spain, he violated Magna Carta by imposing a forced loan on the monarchs without the consent of Parliament.

Magna Carta will be eight hundred years old next year. It stands for the principle that the executive is limited by the law. Kings, emperors, and now presidents have stood against the principles of Magna Carta. Tonight, Obama will add his name to the long list of consequentialists such as John C. Calhoun and Charles I who brazenly ignore laws to achieve their ends.

What will be the Republican response? Is the risk of a government shutdown more dangerous than a transformed America? Will the GOP recognize the dangerous line Obama has crossed, or will they channel Millard Fillmore in response to our modern Calhoun? Will they use the powers the Founders gave them to reign in executive lawlessness, or will they meekly punt the problem to the courts?

The Keystone XL Pipeline didn’t pass. Democrats are pulling advertisements in the state. Several publications have all but declared her tenure in the Senate over. And now a new poll shows her down by double digits:

A new Louisiana survey released by Vox Populi Polling today found that Republican U.S. Senate candidate Bill Cassidy leads Democrat Senator Mary Landrieu 53 to 42 percent, with 5 percent unsure. In addition, Cassidy is up big with Independents, winning with them 58 to 31 percent over Landrieu. Cassidy has seen a big bump after the Nov. 4 open primary. In our recent Oct. 13-14 survey, Cassidy led Landrieu 48 to 44 percent in a head-to-head, with 8 percent unsure.

Deliciously, her Keystone XL Pipeline gambit backfired. Badly:

On the heels of last night’s United States Senate vote on the Keystone XL Pipeline, it is interesting to note that voters aren’t moved by Mary Landrieu’s efforts to bring the legislation before the Senate for a floor vote. When asked if it made voters more likely to vote for the incumbent Democrat, 39 percent said it made them more likely to vote for Bill Cassidy and 32 percent said it made them more likely to vote for Mary Landrieu.

jeswezey
November 20, 2014 at 11:44 am
As far as the amnesty goes, the potus has the power to pardon and no Congress can stop him.

Why do you invariably push the latest Journolister lie/theme of the day?

The answer is no. Reagan had statutory authority which the Journolister’s bloody well know unless they are historically illiterate. Do you automatically spew out whatever the Democratic propagada disiformation unit prattles. The argument of “pardon” of an invading illegal alien horde is silly.

certain people here seem to want to post stuff to further the Oturd’s agenda. I tend to scroll past their posts but secretly wish if they want to suck at the hopium tit they jump over the broom and moooove on.

I Love Cruz..Cruz and Gowdy……would clean up America.
With all the fraud shenanigans, I am afraid Hillary will be forever tied to this monster. ..I never wanted her to serve with him, it was a disaster for her.

I hate to admit this, but I REALLY do not understand this. Is Obola claiming he has to cause all these problems because the Repubs will not pass his crap bill this year? If he really wanted to do it, he would wait until after the 11th so they could not cut his budget. But he cannot wait until them because???

There is a possible Ebola patient in a small hospital not far from St. Louis. YIKES! Too close to home.

_____________________________

Some are saying that there is a good chance that the Grand Jury will give its decision on Friday or Saturday. It
would certainly divert attention from Obama’s illegal amnesty executive order announcement tonight wouldn’t it?
Never let a good crisis go to waste and all of that.

For those of us who live near and have friends and family who work in St. Louis, the situation is a bit concerning.
Hopefully there will be peace without all the present threats of looting, burning, etc. even in the outskirts
of the city. Gun sales have sky rocketed around this area. It feels like a powder keg just waiting to ignite
around the city and surrounding towns now. Hopefully the media has just hyped this beyond reality.

BO’s audacity of arrogance without reality. Obama must have convinced himself that as he said tonight…our borders are secure.
There has not been a problem on his watch and if there were it is past president’s problems not his. He quoted scripture! Mentioned Mom, apple pie, your neighbors. The Audacity!

In an email dated October 4, 2011, Attorney General Holder’s top press aide, Tracy Schmaler, called Attkisson “out of control.” Schmaler told White House Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz that he intended to call CBS news anchor Bob Schieffer to get the network to stop Attkisson. Schultz replied, “Good. Her piece was really bad for the AG.”
——————
Makes you wonder what the other “journalists” in big media think about this.

What worms they are that they do not defend their profession, their colleagues, themselves.

I think we’re all depressed again…you know, he is so good at this..bitch slaps every victory we have collectively had for 6 years..
But we can’t give up…we clawed back, time and time again, and I’ll be damned if I am going to let the bas#ards win.

I just don’t understand her at this point.
___________________________________________________

“Hillary Clinton backed President Barack Obama’s executive action on immigration Thursday night, thanking him for moving amid congressional “inaction” but also urging a legislative solution.
It was the first time Clinton, a likely Democratic presidential candidate in 2016, has spoken out in favor of the president taking executive action on immigration. She has long supported a comprehensive reform of the immigration system.

“I support the President’s decision to begin fixing our broken immigration system and focus finite resources on deporting felons rather than families,” she said in a statement issued after Obama’s announcement. “I was hopeful that the bipartisan bill passed by the Senate in 2013 would spur the House of Representatives to act, but they refused even to advance an alternative. Their abdication of responsibility paved the way for this executive action, which follows established precedent from presidents of both parties going back many decades.

Truman National Security Project, funded by liberal billionaire, Tom Steyer, and Democracy Alliance, also mega-wealthy, seeks to build “blind support” for O’s policies, whatever they may be, including support for any deal barack might strikes with Iran, regardless of the details.

WTF!
_____________

Tom Steyer, Democracy Alliance Funding Support Network for Iran Deal

“Both billionaire donor Tom Steyer and the Democracy Alliance are funders of a liberal think tank in Washington, D.C., that is calling for a “all-hands-on-deck effort” to rally support for any Iran deal the Obama administration may reach.

Power Line reports:

“We have written often about Tom Steyer, the coal magnate turned “green” energy crony who has become the largest funder of the Democratic Party, and the Democracy Alliance, an umbrella group of left-wing donors that supports a variety of liberal organizations. Steyer and the Alliance are usually associated with domestic issues, but one foreign policy organization that both support is the Truman National Security Project.

The Truman National Security Project’s effort to create a network of supporters of the White House efforts to come to a nuclear agreement with Iran on its nuclear program, even before the details of a final nuclear deal have emerged, was revealed in internal emails obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

Power Line’s John Hinderaker writes that the support of Truman from Steyer and the Democracy Alliance donor network says a lot about the effort.

“This is highly revealing: Truman was formed for “exactly” this purpose, that is, to generate an astroturf campaign in blind obedience to Obama administration foreign policies, whatever they may turn out to be. Global warming, no way; Iranian bomb, no problem. Truman parrots the Obama administration’s foreign policy priorities, however perverse they may be.”

I was watching an episode of Law and Order tonight. The star of the show was Sam Waterston–a marvelous actor. I have admired his work for over 30 years, from the time he portrayed Openheimer. I assumed from that performance he was Jewish, but it seems he traces his lineage back to the Mayflower. An interesting factoid.

This particular episode involved the death of an undercover female detective in the Narcotics Division of the New York Police Department by Albanian mobsters who were distributing heroin. She was murdered and tossed out of a 20 story building unto a police cruiser.

When the murderer was apprehended they asked him how her cover was compromised. Turned out it was done by the chief of staff of a progressive democrat congressman to get even with her father who was exposing her corruption. The staffer is an enforcer. He has destroyed the lives of anyone who gets in the congressman’s way, by putting them on trial in the court of public opinion.

When the prosecutor, i.e. Waterston brings murder charges against the staffer, the staffer uses an intermediary to plant a false exculpatory letter on the hard drive in the district attorneys office, whereupon the defense lawyer accuses Waterston of withholding Brady materials which they are obligated to turn over to the defense—to put the prosecutor on trial.

Whereupon, the police do forensic evidence, determine that the letter has been planted, identify the culprit who worked on the progressive congressman’s campaign under the staffer. The prosecutor presents that evidence to the defense and offers the staffer 20 years. The staffer snears at the offer and says he will beat the rap.

And then the prosecutor does something smart. He offers the staffer a reduced sentence if he rats out his boss, the progressive congressman, which he refuses to do because the congressman is a visionary leader who will one day be president.

The next morning the progressive congressman shows up at the prosecutors office and tells him how dare you and who do you think you are. The prosecutor responds I think you are someone who lets other people do his dirty work. Whereupon the congressman asks him what he thinks he has on him. The prosecutor says you know what I have and I am not bluffing.

The congressman asks how much time does the prosecutor was his staffer to do for the crime, the prosecutor says 15 years, and the congressman says I will see to it that he takes it, but this fishing expedition into my record must stop.

Me: As far as the amnesty goes, the potus has the power to pardon and no Congress can stop him.

Mormaer November 20, 2014 at 3:35 pm

Why do you invariably push the latest Journolister lie/theme of the day?

Reagan had statutory authority which the Journolister’s bloody well know unless they are historically illiterate.

Do you automatically spew out whatever the Democratic propagada disiformation unit prattles.

The argument of “pardon” of an invading illegal alien horde is silly.

I don’t see where your sarcasm about my supposed sources is of much use to anybody — certainly not me: I have no idea what the ‘journolisters’ are claiming or, for that matter, what any ‘Democratic propaganda disinformation unit’ is saying.

But I am aware of Reagan’s ‘statutory authority’, which was the presidential power defined in Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution. Obola has the same power and, I repeat, no Congress can stop him, regardless of the party in power there.

I repeat that I am willing to be educated on what wbboei calls the ‘logical limits’ of the president’s constitutional authority to pardon.

Obola delayed action until after the elections and obviously did so for political purposes. That is reprehensible; but Congress has refused to act on immigration for how long? I think it’s been well over a year since the bill by the “gang of 8” passed the Senate and has not even been introduced for debate in the House.

That’s how enthusiastic the GOP is to resolve the immigration problem. And now we expect the GOP to take the bull by the horns because the Just-Say-No party now has control of the Senate too?

Let’s get real here: Either the GOP doesn’t care about the country any more than Obola does, in which case it’s all about 2016 politics for them, or else the GOP is innocent but doesn’t have a clue what to do. Having watched the GOP for decades from afar, I rather think it’s the former case that holds.

HRC apparently agrees with me on all counts. She tweets:

Thanks to POTUS for taking action on immigration in the face of inaction. Now let’s turn to permanent bipartisan reform.

And in a longer written statement, she said she blamed the “abdication of responsibility” of Congress for failing to address the issue sooner:

“We should never forget that we’re not discussing abstract statistics — we’re talking about real families with real experiences. We’re talking about parents lying awake at night afraid of a knock on the door that could tear their families apart, people who love this country, work hard, and want nothing more than a chance to contribute to the community and build better lives for themselves and their children.”

In the meantime,

Republicans have vowed to fight the action [of course!], which they call an executive overreach that’s unfair to legal immigrants. But some GOP observers fret that too much opposition to reform could further alienate Latinos and close off Republicans’ path to the presidency as they grow in political clout.

So, as usual, all the Rethugs want is to undo, repeal, move backward, and always with an eye toward negative attack ads they can use in the next election.

Sorry that I quoted HRC at 3:26 am — I hadn’t looked up-thread to see if those quotes had already been reported.

It surprises me, though, that nobody seems to understand why she is saying what she is saying. Is it so hard to understand what I’ve been saying for years, which is that there is not much difference between HRC and Obola on the issues?

And this is especially true in this particular case of immigration reform. The “path to citizenship” that HRC (and Obola) promised in 2008 calls for an act of Congress and Congress is unwilling to act; but the issues dealt with in Obola’s speech are beyond reproach and within presidential powers:

(1) Build up law enforcement personnel at the border “to stem the tide of illegal crossings and speed the return of those that do cross over”.

Nobody can complain about this, but Congress may very well cut off funding for it, just for fun.

(2) Easier and faster registration for high school graduates and entrepreneurs to stay and contribute to our economy.

Obola doesn’t elaborate on this, but I gather that it involves amnesty plus registration. In fact, I don’t see any big difference between this measure and the following, which is:

(3) Deal responsibly with the millions of undocumented immigrants who already live in the US, meaning that undocumented immigrants broke our immigration laws and must be held accountable. He points out that deportations of criminals are up 80% since 2008. His rule of thumb is to prioritize felons, criminals, gang members, not families, children and single mothers.

Most undocumented workers have been here a long time and work hard in low-paying jobs. Many kids are American-born or have spent most of their lives here. So, if:

(a) You have been in the US for more than 5 years,
(b) You have children who are US citizens or legal residents,
(c) You register,
(d) You pass a criminal background check,
(e) You are willing to pay your fair share of taxes,

then you will be able to apply to stay in this country temporarily without deportation.

He points out that this measure:

(a) does not apply to anyone who has come to the country recently, or in the future.

(b) does not offer citizenship, permanent status or the same benefits that citizens receive (only Congress can do that).

Although Obola claims that this is not an amnesty, I claim that it is, because by the letter of the law they should be deported and they will not be. But to counter this argument, Obola rightly claims that tracking down, trying and deporting millions of people is not realistic and it is not who we are as a people.

He also rightly quips that “amnesty is people who don’t pay taxes or play by the rules while politicians use the issue to scare people and whip up votes at election time.” That’s blowback to Republicans’ political games that I happen to agree with, as does HRC.

If the Republicans want to stop playing politics and start working for the good of the country, they will take the above measures in stride and come to a vote on, or at least debate, the “Gang of 8” bill.

Tony Stark
November 20, 2014 at 11:19 pm
What that tells me is that she has given up on the idea of running.

I agree. The Democrats just dug their hole. I do hope she doesn’t say it and continues to suck up all of the oxygen and donors so none of the others can get a boost until it is too late in the cycle. If Obama can go on a rampage of destruction so should she.

Me: As far as the amnesty goes, the potus has the power to pardon and no Congress can stop him.

Thank you for your insight Chief Justice jewezey. I thought the illegals weren’t criminals so why does he have to pardon them? Which is it? He does not have the power to impose unfunded mandates on states nor erase sovereign historical borders. Even really stupid kings don’t do that. We had a war a long time ago about taxation (mandates to pay taxes) for stuff we didn’t vote on but Obama can’t understand that the country (with no borders) just voted “no” on it. As for political borders, if we don’t have any we aren’t a country and Obama is president of jack squat. What’s President Mawkish Antidote going to do? Call us names? Arrest all of us? If there is no boundary there is no jurisdiction, no authority, no consent. Get it? The silly boy declared himself king of nothing.

We have a very dangerous situation in this country. Obama has tied the hands of border security people. They do not need a raise. They need to be allowed to do their jobs. Amnesty is not reform. It is simply giving up.

(Sheriff of Sacramento County after burying one of his officers murdered by an illegal who was deported and returned to this country four times)

Note: Mexico is a Narco state. It is madness to run an open border with them.

Also note the cave in by Bob Corker—the RINO I warned you about. He says don’t worry. Obama is doing this because he is weak. Elect us in 2016 and this adverse policy will remain in place, but we will not be weak. (Note: one look at who how lavishly this junior senator from Tennessee is funded and by whom, and it becomes obvious that he is a stooge for big business, just like McConnell. They favor illegal immigration much as the dims do, and they have just subsidized it. The forseeable effect will be more crime, less employment, more pressure on the safety nets. Read the article by Erickson entitled you are being played, and you will see that Boehner and McConnell will run their mouth but do nothing.

Jaime Fuller of the Washington Post explains why none of the major broadcast networks are covering the speech where president Obama is scheduled to announce amnesty for up to 5 million illegals. ”ABC, NBC, Fox and CBS knew that their customers would not be happy if the President ate into time reserved for some of the most popular shows on television, including “The Big Bang Theory” and “Bones.” (Editor’s Note: If I wasn’t watching Obama’s speech, I’d be watching “The This Old House Hour.”)”

It would be possible to respond symmetrically; to respond to lawbreaking in kind. But to do that would rip the whole fabric of law to pieces. Short of that, the most effective response to Obama’s to what some commentators have characterized as an act of lawlessness is to snub it deliberately. The non-coverage by the networks, though perhaps accidental, is a start. It’s almost as if some people had independently come to the conclusion attributed to Eamon de Valera. Pondering the problem of Irish independence he says (in the movie Michael Collins at least) that “we must act as if the Republic is a fact. We defeat the British Empire by ignoring it”.

Bob Corker of Tennessee argues that Obama desperately wants to be noticed.

“This president is not acting in strength, he is acting in weakness. Unless lightning strikes, it will be the worst presidency in modern history.

“There has to be a response, no question. But it has to be a response that enables us to continue to move our nation ahead, remembering that this president will be gone in two years. He’s incredibly weak, and candidly, he is doing these things because he doesn’t have the ability to lead and is not willing to put the effort out to do the work to actually cause things to pass in Congress.”

The danger to being content with this conclusion is passivity. What the Valera ‘quote’ failed to emphasize, is that in order to “ignore” someone effectively you do so obviously. Ignoring someone has no effect unless you do it insultingly. The act of overtly and publicly ignoring a person is called ‘scorn’.

Scorn works best when the person to be ignored provides an object of scorn. That way there is something to overtly ignore. One of the most famous historical examples of a scorn-objecct was Gessler’s Hat.

In the foundation-legend of the Swiss confederacy, Alberect Gessler was a cruel and tyrannical overlord installed by the Austrians, who installed his hat atop a pole in the public marketplace and decreed that all should bow to it … to his hat, not merely his person. Such a declaration was, I think, a way of rubbing in his authority over the common citizens – indeed, rubbing their noses in the fact that he could make them do so, and do so in front of everyone else.

Ignoring Gessler’s hat got William Tell into trouble because it is the nature of Gesslers that they cannot afford to be ignored. They need to be noticed. The problem facing conservative organizers is to find that Gessler’s Hat as a starting point.

Active scorn is a prudent and need one say, a legal alternative. Because the laws neither enforce nor defend themselves themselves without men, a conscious lawbreaker necessarily dares everyone else to follow him into a fearful symmetry. The time honored pause before getting out of the car and responding to the fistfight challenge of someone who wants to be noticed has been to laugh long and hard at the tinpot leader first.

In a way Obama is daring his opponents to join him in trashing the republic. He thinks that’s “historic”. One response is to “act as if the Republic is a fact/

The former chairman of the House Judiciary Committee said President Obama’s immigration executive order announced tonight is a “declaration of war” against America.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the current chairman of the House Space, Science and Technology Committee, is an attorney by trade.

“The president knows that his executive amnesty is not what the American people want, and it is not what Congress wants. That is why he delayed making this announcement until after this November’s election,” Smith said in a statement.

“President Obama has put the interests of an extreme wing of his party above the interests of American workers,” the chairman continued. “Some have said that the actions he is taking this week equal a declaration of war on Republicans.”

“I believe he is actually declaring war on the American people and our democracy.”

Smith added that “as elected representatives of the American people, my colleagues and I intend to listen to our constituents in the coming weeks.”

“We must restore the rule of law and the people’s faith in their democratic republic once more,” he said.

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), a former prosecutor who now leads the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, said Obama “may seek a fight with Republicans in Congress, but in reality he is fighting with founders of this republic and the carefully crafted separation of powers.”

“The thread that holds the tapestry of our country together is respect for and adherence to the rule of law. The law is our greatest unifier and our greatest equalizer. Attempts to undermine the law via executive fiat, regardless of motivation, are dangerous,” Gowdy said.

“Whether previous administrations acted outside of constitutional boundaries is not license to do the same. The president himself recognized his inability to do what he just did— 22 separate times,” he continued. “This action is not only detrimental to any chance in the new Congress for a sustainable, long-term solution on immigration, but also to the bedrock of our system of government— respect for the rule of law.”

Gowdy added that “when the executive branch acts outside of constitutional boundaries, the legislative branch must use all powers afforded it to respond and restore the constitutional equilibrium.”

“This is not a Republican or Democrat issue,” he said. “Rather, it should hasten the resolve of all Americans to make certain her elected officials honor the foundational document they swore to protect and defend.”

Trey Gowdy’s comments in the article above puts him and other conservatives on a collision course with Boehner and McConnell with respect to whom the fix is in. Again, I refer you to the article by Erickson which illuminates their well worn path of retreat. The Obama is weak argument by Corker is pathetic.

Very disappointed in Hillary. I guess I did not know her at all. 🙁 I will not be supporting her any further and I’ll be deleting my membership her. I’m actually not a Democrat anymore and had been debating whether I could support her in a new run. I won’t be. Glad to have got to know some good people here. For those who still support her, get ready to have your heartbroke again. She will lose again.

I will continue to read this blog for its variety of news and opinion. However, I am done with Hillary.
I will not support any candidate who will not insist on closing the border to illegal immigration BEFORE any decision or negotiation on what to do with the 20 million here.
I may even consider becoming a registered Repug if it looks as if there will be a decent candidate to choose in a primary.

I am done apologizing for Hillary’s actions since 2008. She had her moment…she should have fought then at the convention or run as a third party candidate. But if this is who she really is then I guess its just as well she didn’t.
Hillary was my senator from NY. When there was a move to give drivers licenses to illegals she was for it until there was great public outcry against. Then she changed her position to say that it would have to come after the border was controlled. I was naïve to think she would respond to the American public now. Perhaps the Clintons are too entrenched in the political and elite sphere they inhabit and they just really don’t get it anymore. Sad, very sad.

Very disappointed in Hillary. I guess I did not know her at all.
———–
Either she changed as a result of the fall, or she mislead you, me and others. There is no material difference between supporting Hillary and supporting Obama. And that is the hard cold fact many of us have been reluctant to accept. But it is what it is. They were not going to give the new Republican congress a chance to address the issue. This is the same crap they pulled with Israel where Israeli recognition of Palestine was to have been the final step in the process based on a quid pro quo of Palestinian recognition of Israel, whereupon Obama swooped down and skimmmed the creme off the deal for political gain and sent a signal to the Palestinians that he would strong arm Israel. The way he did it there was the same way he did it here—as a fait a compli. He leaned on Israel to recognize Palestine as a pre condition to negotiation. He, again, he has granted a unilateral right to 5 million law breakers as the initial step, leaving 15 million more illegals for the Republican congress to deal with. I saw Bill’s blessing this action as an extension of the pardoning power, which he abused during his term in office, as illustrated by the Mark Rich pardon–an international criminal. So I guess I am underwhelmed by what he his support for this travesty, which will adversely affect efforts to reach a sensible accord because political poison has been injected into what would have been a difficult process to begin with. We need an independent party.

This is part and parcel of the wisdom known to every prosecutor who has the welfare of the public in mind and is not simply using the process as a stepping stone for higher office.

There is a different set of laws and rules for the elites. And, as the Cuban banker used to tell me, the upper class and the lower class have one thing in common: neither one believes the rules of society apply to them. The rich buy their way out of responsibility and the underclass attacks the rules as racist.

Yesterday on twitter I encountered a some cocky bots and that got me to thinking they might be feeling a bounce now. Certainly the Latino bounce is at its greatest right now?
Horrid thought.
What if Obama is forming a 3rd party even as we wait to see if one will form for us.
——————-
I have just the smallest thought about Hillary. When the kids were surging through the Mexican border like water in a flood, she did say they would have to be returned. Many of you got to feel you knew her back in 08 and I was happy to come along on that ride of hope.
And that’s all I got.

I oppose comprehensive immigration reform. I think Congress always fails as comprehensive legislation. But, long time readers know I am squishier on the immigration issue than many RedStaters. There are portions of what the President proposed last night that I support in principle and, frankly, was surprised by how mild some of the actions were, given the run up to the announcement.

But whatever I think of those things the President proposed, it is irrelevant because I believe the President has no power to do what he has done. He himself agreed back in 2011. The President has taken actions that require Congressional approval. His advisors say Congress had their chance and did not act. That is, essentially, an affirmative act of Congress. By not acting, the President himself cannot act alone. He is not a dictator.

Here, though, is where you are being played. There are enough Republicans in Congress who in private support what the President did that they will go through elaborate kabuki theater to keep you convinced they’re going to fight him, when in reality the Republicans are going to fund the President’s plan.

You are being played.

Republicans are pushing forward with a plan to fund the government. They claim they will then return next year and defund the President’s plan. But doing so would be subject to a Presidential veto. The GOP does not have the votes to override that veto. In effect, they’ll be funding the President’s plan while setting themselves up to claim they oppose it.

The GOP does not oppose the President’s plan. Hell, much of the GOP, including most of its Senate leadership, has previously voted for what the President did. And these same Republicans have attacked their own base as racists and bigots for opposing comprehensive immigration reform.

You are being played. The GOP wants this.

And if you don’t believe it, look at what they’ve done.

They ran to the nearest camera, declared this a constitutional crisis and a violation of the separation of powers, then they hopped a flight back to their home states.

If the GOP really thought this were a constitutional crisis, they would act like it. They would be willing to shut it all down to preserve the integrity of the constitutional system.

But they have no intention of doing that. Why? Because you are being played. And it is the GOP playing you.

Thank you for your insight Chief Justice jewezey. I thought the illegals weren’t criminals so why does he have to pardon them? Which is it? He does not have the power to impose unfunded mandates on states nor erase sovereign historical borders. Even really stupid kings don’t do that. We had a war a long time ago about taxation (mandates to pay taxes) for stuff we didn’t vote on but Obama can’t understand that the country (with no borders) just voted “no” on it. As for political borders, if we don’t have any we aren’t a country and Obama is president of jack squat. What’s President Mawkish Antidote going to do? Call us names? Arrest all of us? If there is no boundary there is no jurisdiction, no authority, no consent. Get it? The silly boy declared himself king of nothing.
———-
And there is no right for a landowner like Zuckerberg to evict tresspassers on his property. Private property rights are implicated here as well as public property rights. To evict squatters is racism. And they all have compelling personal stories which give them the moral right to share your land with them. No favors to the elites. Come swim in the same sewer as you have put the rest of us in, as you say, the water is fine.

I thought the illegals weren’t criminals so why does he have to pardon them?

They are criminals in the sense that they did not go through the established channels (visa, green card etc.) to enter and stay in the country, which is breaking federal law; so if Obola wants to afford some of these “criminals” a chance to come out of the shadows and work toward citizenship, he has to pardon them for breaking that federal law.

If you listened to the speech or read my summary at 5:45 am, you’ll see that the pardon is not an open-ended blanket amnesty for all these “criminals.” There are criminals with records including robbery, rape, murder, whatever, and he makes a point of saying that prosecution/deportation of criminals with these other infractions in their records has risen 80% since he took office. The possibility of a pardon is extended to those with no criminal records.

Furthermore, the pardon is not doled out free of charge. It is to the five conditions precedent (a) to (e) that I listed at 5:45, and goes hand-in-hand with a temporary authorization to stay, i.e. not be deported.

I’m not taking bets on how many of these undocumented workers are going to come clean. Maybe only a handful, maybe a lot. Time will tell.

But if your solution to the whole thing would be to deport 12 million people, or put them in jail, you’re looking at a physically unrealistic proposition, one that would not go over well with the population, one that is not in keeping with the American Tradition with a big T, and one that Congress would never fund.

I think Obola was quite right in saying that this is an issue that politicians use to scare people and whip up some votes in elections, so maybe he was right to postpone his actions until after the election.

Bottom line: These are only half-way measures but Obola has not exceeded his powers. We can now wait and wait for the GOP to engineer a counter-proposal, or something better. We’ll be waiting for two years, imo.

I will not support any candidate who will not insist on closing the border to illegal immigration BEFORE any decision or negotiation on what to do with the 20 million here.
I may even consider becoming a registered Repug if it looks as if there will be a decent candidate to choose in a primary.

You’re cutting your nose off to spite your face.

The first step Obola is taking is to close off the border more effectively with more law enforcement officers, before offering a deal to law-abiding undocumented workers who have already been here for more than 5 years.

As for the Repugs you’re ready to join, they’re not going to get you any closer to what you want. They just use immigration as a campaign issue to pull your vote away from Hillary or whoever they’re up against. You’re ripe for being played by the Repugs.

I think we’re all depressed again…you know, he is so good at this..bitch slaps every victory we have collectively had for 6 years..
But we can’t give up…we clawed back, time and time again, and I’ll be damned if I am going to let the bas#ards win.

But it all depends on whether he can get funding and runs as an independent.

There is no way in god’s green earth that an honest human being committed to the welfare of the American People can ascend to a position of president WITHIN either of the two parties. The chances are zero.

No, the pardoning power is not the issue here. You can pardon specific individuals deemed to be enemies of this nation—like Bill Clinton did. You can pardon people who tortured enemy captives like Bush tried to do and Obama did. But this pardon extended to specific named individuals. That is entirely different from pardoning an entire class of unnamed people who have broken the law. That is a legislative function and the contention that it is an appropriate subject for executive action is pure sophistry.

One thing is interesting however. Between the rhetoric of the Republican Part and their actions–between their words and their actual deeds there exists a vast vacuum. This vacuum was exposed by their actions in Mississippi. And it is confirmed by their failure to take effective action to protect the interests of the American People with respect to an invasion of this country.

Nature abhors a vacuum.

The RINOs days are numbered. He cannot hold the base of the party together any longer. All it takes is the emergence of an independent candidate who is credible. The base of that party, plus millions of independents will beat a path to his door.

I should add, the independents are through with the democrat party as well. We may be in the twilight of the two party system which has become so corrupted by the power of money, that it cannot represent the American People any longer. I for one would not regret its passing.

In re. Obama’s attack on Sharyl Attkisson via Boob Sheiffer CBS anchor to force her to stop investigating his scandals: Hot Air makes this point below. Bottom line: most big media reporters enjoy a comfortable stall fed existence which prevents them from speaking truth to power–or defending the American People.
———————

This brings us to a more subtle point. We know (or should by now) that all sides in Washington play hardball when it comes to media courtship and spin control. Documents get leaked for a reason by Democrats and Republicans alike. Reporters get nuggets when they appear to be friendly or when it suits a politician, and get frozen out just as easily. That’s just life in the Beltway, and one doesn’t have to be marinated in the culture to know how business as usual operates.

This, however, goes beyond that — in a couple of ways.

First, it goes way beyond the normal carrot-stick relationship with reporters on getting favored stories, and moves into a place where reporters are pressured to keep quiet about government abuse and incompetence — or lose their jobs. That’s flat-out intimidation of the kind one would normally associate with, say, the Nixon White House and its notorious Enemies List. It’s the kind of gangster-government environment more associated with banana republics. If it succeeds, it guarantees the complete removal of accountability and transparency, and turns the media into stenographers.

There’s another troubling aspect to this, too. The DoJ and White House seemed to be surprised that no one other than Attkisson ran with the documents that got leaked (other than Fox, of course). Why wouldn’t they report on leaked documents from Fast & Furious? It’s certainly not because DC reporters suddenly got ethical reservations about using leaks. John’s point is well worth considering, not just because of the media bias it demonstrates, but also because that media bias allowed the Obama administration to focus its sights on just one journalist.

It’s not just that the White House went after a reporter, but also that the failure by most of Attkisson’s colleagues in the industry to “speak truth to power,” “afflict the comfortable,” or whatever tiresome cliché they routinely use to describe their work in heroic terms, when it counted. They left Attkisson isolated, an easy target for the power they claim to challenge.

yesterday i was driving and flipping radio channels and caught Hannity – this may have been before Hillary’s most recent statement on immigration and the support of O’s actions…

he played a clip of hers on immigration a few years ago…she was so spot on…so “moderate”…so acknowledging the need for immigration reform but with consideration and protection for American hardworking citizens, etc…her first priority was the middle class and americans and then immigration reform…

if anyone comes across that clip it is worth a listen…Hannity even said something like ‘how is she going to square what she said then with O’s actions now?’

that was/is the Hillary I support…if she starts in with O 2 and supports his actions and the far left she will not be the same candidate she was in 2008 or someone I can support…one of the reasons she was so popular was because she sounded fair and made sense…if she starts sounding like she is placating the left she is going to sabatoge her own chances…

Hillary has to understand that the country has had enough of O…that is why the Democratic party is in shambles…does she really think it would be smart to continue down the path they are on and lose her best chance at winning…

…I am afraid O has ruined her chances…she needs to be her own person and get away from him…otherwise HER base is going to look elsewhere…

You can pardon specific individuals deemed to be enemies of this nation… this pardon extended to specific named individuals. That is entirely different from pardoning an entire class of unnamed people who have broken the law.

I don’t know why you’re talking about “an entire class of unnamed people”. No such thing was said nor intended. It makes me think you didn’t listen to the speech or to my summary of it. Let me repeat:

IF:

(a) You have been in the US for more than 5 years,

(b) You have children who are US citizens or legal residents,

(c) You register,

(d) You pass a criminal background check,

(e) You are willing to pay your fair share of taxes,

THEN:

You will be able to apply to stay in this country temporarily without deportation.

People will be taken one by one and asked to meet the five conditions, including (c) registration.

THEN the fact of having broken federal law by entering and staying/working in the country without documents will be pardoned. Other crimes will not be pardoned and the person either goes to jail or is deported.

THEN the person can apply to stay temporarily, without deportation.

This is not a pardon for “an entire class of unnamed people”.

Furthermore, Obola was very clear that the offer does not stand for recent immigrants, nor for those of the future. That’s why he started off by saying that border security is being upgraded.

Krauthammer says this is going to encourage more illegal immigrants in the future. Here, he’s putting ideas into the heads of people he doesn’t know.

He apparently doesn’t realize that one of the easiest ways to enter the United States illegally is not across the Rio Grande but by flying into JFK and walking through the “US Passports” gate, which I have done a number of times. There is no check of the passport, no customs. And once you’re through that gate, the Fifth Amendment applies to everyone – no policeman has the right to ask you for identity.

This is the dark side of the Fifth Amendment and the reason why I think it should be repealed. That would go a long way toward clamping down on illegal immigration.

But I digress:

If you don’t think Obola’s “deal” for undocumented workers will do any good, or will do harm, to the illegal immigrant situation, then what would you suggest? What do you think the Republicans should do?

My guess is that the Republicans will — at most — pass the Gang of 8 bill, perhaps with a few changes. Otherwise, they will do nothing, as is their wont. They definitely won’t go after Obola for executive overreach, because there is none.

We are not privy to what goes on in HRC’s camp and what kind of chess play is this, but either she truly believes and supports Obama’s proclamation of amnesty for illegal immigrants or she is getting really bad advice. Maybe she was told that supporting this would increase her standing among the dimwits who control the party and the purse strings.

Is Hillary taking a look at the toll Ocare is having on the average American who actually has to pay for it…and then what they get for their hard earned money…

it looks like the whole Dim party is living in another reality…or delusional…

time to come back down to planet Earth…USA
then deal with Immigration…the dims have to worry they are going back into Jimmy Carter territory where the average American thought the party was way too liberal and wierd…

This is fundamentally a legislative function which the executive must not usurp. There is no limiting principle to its exercise. Under the broad analysis proffered by the communists, a president could decide that 100 million Chinese nationals could come to this country pursuant to his authority. The fact that this jackass attaches criteria to implementation to his edict, which he pulls of his ass, not mean that under this unconstitutional interpretation, his power to act is constrained in any way. And for those like him who seek to justify this seizure of legislative power by the fact that the House did not rubber stamp the legislation which came out of a democrat controlled Senate because it failed to provide border security , I would say you could just as easily point to the fact that this was going to be one of the first issues the new Republican congress planned to take up on January 21, so all this really was was a usurpation of legislative power to secure political points, which leaves 7 million more in limbo. Perhaps he plans to legislate with respect to them as well. We need a third party, one that is capable of protecting the American People and dealing with constitutional crises such as this. There is no greater threat to national security that what he has done.

Rep Labrador will be on Face The Nation Sunday. He has posted this preview on FB:
Rep. Raúl R. Labrador
18 hours ago
Read my statement issued following President Obama’s announcement Thursday evening of a new executive order regarding U.S. immigration law:

“Today President Obama conceded his failure as a leader on immigration. Instead of finding common ground with Congress, he chose to bail out his bankrupt presidency through an order he has already admitted he cannot legally take. He violated his promise to champion reform in his first term, sabotaged bipartisan House negotiations in his second and bred distrust by failing to faithfully enforce the law throughout.

“Now he wants to save face by imposing unilaterally what he could not achieve democratically. Congress must defend its constitutional role to make laws and immediately block his illegal action through all available avenues.

“The president’s action not only undermines efforts to achieve real reform – it is directly opposed to it. Real reform starts with enforcing current laws, securing the border and modernizing the visa system. Only a system that works – that drives immigrants into viable avenues for legal entry – will end illegal immigration and protect the rule of law. That is what I will continue to fight for – no matter who occupies the White House.”

This really does get down to one of those fool me once shame on you fail me twice shame on me situations and in two articles posted above Erickson has called the game on the RINO. Just remember too some of the RINOs who are now politicking over this were members of the gang of 8 who passed the bad bill in the senate. Just don’t stand there and piss on my leg and tell me its raining oh RINO. And stop pretending that the American People are too stupid to figure out the game they are playing.

Tony S…I saw a “liberal poll” and Hillary comes in third…
——————
Which would seem to suggest that her strategy of targeting the communists, i.e. progressives, while simultaneously courting Wall Street, at the expense of the middle class, is not selling with the target group. She would be better off pitching her arguments to main street, and stop accepting half a million dollar stipends and expressing undying admiration for all things Obama. The problem is, the progressives do not believe Hillary is one of them, but the conservatives and the independents do believe she is one of them, i.e. a progressive, rather than a centrist.

“As part of his executive order, President Obama suspended the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Secure Communities program. Secure Communities required the FBI to automatically send the fingerprints of anyone arrested by state or local police to DHS for a cross check; DHS could then screen the arrestee to see if the person was either a criminal alien, or someone who fell under civil immigration enforcement priorities.

The program was responsible for identifying and deporting hundreds of thousands of dangerous criminals who are here illegally and already in custody is no more.”

She would be better off pitching her arguments to main street , and stop accepting half a million dollar stipends and expressing undying admiration for all
things Obama.

*****************agree…instead of going over the cliff…she is going to prove her critics right – what is her core? is she the same person her base has been counting on and believing she is…or has she sold out…

***************************

here is a winning position that Hillary should be positioning herself with

President Barack Obama is ignoring the plight of millions of Americans in need with his focus on extending protections to illegal immigrants through executive order, neurosurgeon and potential 2016 Republican presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson told Newsmax TV’s “America’s Forum.”

Carson questioned why Obama placed the immigration issue above the “millions and millions of people in this country, in our inner cities, Appalachia, rural areas, who are suffering enormously economically

“I don’t think it takes into consideration the welfare of American citizens,” Carson said Friday. “Why don’t we spend some time figuring out what we can do for (Americans suffering economically)?
“If we place nearly as much emphasis on them, we might be able to then reach a point where we can administer aid to other people.”.” (this sounds like the “old” Hillary to me

good video clip that makes sense…

******************************************************************
nice…O opens the gates to the sex offenders and drug dealers…

1. first, it spits in the eye of the American People, who just voted against this amnesty without border security.

2. second, it constitutes a usurpation of the legislative function by the executive, and thereby makes a mockery out of the Constitution.

3. third, it signals to people who applied legally that they are chumps and to million around the world come here from different cultures, do not share our values, come hither and you will be given amnesty.

When a Republican President takes power in 2016 do not be surprised if he uses this precedent to undo many of these things and force through policies the left does not like, and, because of this, the left will have no standing to complain.

“Up to 30,000 missing emails sent by former Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner have been recovered by the IRS inspector general, five months after they were deemed lost forever.”
—————
They need to be given to all the Congressional Oversight Committee after the Republicans take over the Senate.

Holy crap, I was sick and off the blog for awhile and come back to this dust up about Hillary………again.

Come on folks, anyone that knows Hillary knows that she isn’t a middle of the road centrist. She is on some major things like the economy, jobs, a strong but not Cowboy aggressive military, human rights, working across the isle to make Congress work for the country, etc.

But, she has always been supportive of immigration reform. More liberal than I am. I have heard her talk about how she would hope to make changes, not necessary the same changes King Obola would make…but not kicking the illegals out and building a fence like I want.

Then again, the Rethugs only passes around paper-airplanes of bills to try and make a fake impression of ‘doing something’ in Congress. Talk, talk, talk, bluster, hot air and no action.

I admit I hate that anyone doesn’t stop this illegal flow, get in line, don’t get a free pass. I don’t like Hillary supporting any of it, but I already knew that Hillary was more to the left than I am, so I don’t get all the anxiety or surprise.

I don’t agree with jeswezey that Hillary and Obola are that similar at all. They are as similar as Hillary version of Single Payer health care and this piece of dog shit called ObamaCare.

Just like I don’t believe that if she were Pres. she would pull this King Obola act on immigration. She would have gotten down in trenches, rolled up her sleeves and hammered out some compromise with the GOP. Not turned up her nose like the fraud.

Everyone needs to examine what Hillary does and says and decide if she is the person they support or not.
That’s what freedom of choice is all about.

I haven’t found the perfect candidate just like I haven’t found the perfect anything in life. But I sure enjoy the smart, good people that I have found.

I am very disheartened by the state of the nation in decline. It is like seeing the carcass of a once great lady being feasted off of by a flock of vultures. Obola is but their pet human.

The thing is, most people can be very happy with a modest lifestyle. But when the average salary is $44,000 and the average house is $250,000 and a BS degree costs $240,000 and you need a couple of million saved for retirement,the math just does not work. Raising the minimum wage is an obscene joke.

I am tired of being pushed to the bottom of the food chain. First burdened with the heathcare costs of other people, many who have abused their own health. Now, illegal foreigners will be given the priority to take opportunities my daughter will not get, while she is paid 78% of what a man would make.

I have raged and I have cried and I have decided what I am going to do.

I have decided to give Hillary Clinton Amnesty.

Amnesty from the stupid things I think she has done that put her candidacy in jeopardy.

Amnesty from the phoney stuff she says pretending that she is a progressive totalitarian asshole.

I think what people here do not understand is that we lost the Democratic Party in 2008. These people are Stalinist totalitarians and they are not willing to acknowledge their ideology is not just unacceptable to most people, it just does not work.

Then, on the other side are the Republicans who have to have the two sides of their brains disconnected to be Okay about what they are preaching.

Lu4PUMA and Shadow…I (we) just do not want O2..or an O clone…the strong, independent Hillary we love has not emerged yet…we do not want her compromised by the powers behind her

I think many of us have the same fears you mention above LU4PUMA…

it will not help Hillary for all of her supporters to just go quietly into the night while the kooks try to remake her or force her into their image…

perhaps think of it as fighting for Hillary’s soul, if you will…and she needs to hear from us…our voices have been muted for the last six years…now is the time to let them be heard…make no mistake the kooks will fight for control of her agenda…

I agree with you Lu, except despite what may appear on the blog right not, there are people like myself that will fight for Hillary, because she is better than anyone else out there that I have seen.

I don’t like this amnesty bs either, and like I said…I don’t think Hillary would have handled the situation this way at all. She is frustrated with the GOP too.

Who knows, maybe the majority here are right, that she won’t run. I still hope she does, for American’s sake.

I also agree with you on working poor, getting poorer and poorer. If these illegals were sent home, wouldn’t we have enough jobs and support to help our own people instead of telling them to hide in the bushes?

Normally it’s pretty clear, but in politics, we have been robbed of the Hero’s the Supermen and women…at least for the past 6 years.

We have sure heard a lot of noise from the peanut gallery, but there has been no action.

We know Obola and the Kooks are the evil-doers…(I couldn’t avoid slipping that term in)

but…..we are still waiting for the Good Hero’s and Heroette’s to arrive and DO SOMETHING!

I am sick and tired of words and no real deeds to fix things.

When did our damn government break down and sit on their thumbs while our country went to Hell?

When did being the minority party mean that sending paper-airplane bills in Congress…was good enough?

Didn’t we ‘hire’ these idiots, then ‘fire them’, to only find our own little hitler getting away with destroying what we have worked all of our lives to build for our families? When did giving away the farm become the mantra of the Dim party?

Several years ago, the Washington Examiner produced a special report
entitled “Who controls the Democratic party?” Besides myself (I was
editorial page editor then), the authors of the six-part series included
former Clinton administration political adviser Doug Schoen, Capital
Research Center senior editor Matt Patterson, and Ron Arnold, Examiner
columnist and among the nation’s most knowledgeable experts on political
funding.

As the introduction explained, the purpose of the series was to detail the
reality that “classaction trial lawyers, Big Labor union leaders, Big Green
environmentalists, and Big Insiders with billions of dollars in personal
wealth and foundation grants — together essentially dictate what Democrats
can and cannot support on many key public policy issues. Call them the
Four Horsemen of the coming Democratic apocalypse.

“These four groups provide most of the campaign funding and workers,
political and policy expertise, legal and regulatory muscle, and strategic
communications for the Democratic Party.

Consequently, most Democrats are prisoners of a narrow agenda of
constantly growing government budgets, regulation and taxing.”
Since the series appeared, very little has changed. President Obama is still
in the Oval Office.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid still has a choke-hold on the world’s
most exclusive debating society and Republican leaders in the House of
Representative still have control of only one-half of one-third of the federal
government.New campaign finance data recently compiled and published by
OpenSecrets.org makes it clear that something else hasn’t changed since
2011 – the trial lawyers, union bosses, environmental activists and superwealthy
individuals like George Soros and Tom Steyer still dictate what
Democratic officials can and cannot do.

Seven of the 10 richest superPACs in 2014 fund liberal Democrats and
causes. Only two of the top 10 fund conservatives (one if neither),
according to OpenSecrets.org. The superPACs can raise and spend
unlimited amounts of money on campaigns.

Similarly, when compiling the top donors overall, OpenSecrets.org said
this: “One of the first things you may notice about the 2014 list is that of
the top 20 organizations, only two favor Republicans.

The rest, with the exception of one ‘on the fence’ trade association, all
strongly prefer liberal policies and Democratic candidates.”
In other words, some of the numbers have changed since 2011, but “Who
controls the Democratic Party” remains a primary issue at the heart of
American politics and the Examiner’s series is as relevant – and, for many,
disturbing – today as it ever was.

That’s why the Examiner is republishing the series, but this time as an
eBook in hopes of getting it in the hands of millions of Americans across
the political spectrum who may not agree on everything, but they most
certainly agree on this: America is headed in the wrong direction in large
part because these four special interest groups control the Democratic
Party.

I agree with you Lu, except despite what may appear on the blog right not, there are people like myself that will fight for Hillary, because she is better than anyone else out there that I have seen.

I don’t like this amnesty bs either, and like I said…I don’t think Hillary would have handled the situation this way at all. She is frustrated with the GOP too.

Who knows, maybe the majority here are right, that she won’t run. I still hope she does, for American’s sake.

I also agree with you on working poor, getting poorer and poorer. If these illegals were sent home, wouldn’t we have enough jobs and support to help our own people instead of telling them to hide in the bushes?

___________

Hell yeah! I agree with entire comment, Shadow, especially your statement about still fighting for Hillary. I’m right there with you.

There are people out there who genuinely appreciate all that President Obama has done since he found the American crown adrift in the gutter back in 2008. The TaxProf blog explains who these fortunate individuals are below.

12,040 new ultra high net worth (UHNW) individuals were minted this year, pushing the global UHNW population to a record 211,275, a 6% increase from 2013. The combined wealth of the world’s UHNW individuals – defined as those with US$30 million and above in net assets – increased by 7% to US$29.725 trillion in 2014, almost twice the GDP of the world’s largest economy, the United States.

It was in the interest of all of his newly-minted billionaire buddies that the president chose to act decisively on immigration and legalize 5 million individuals who came to the United States illegally. The President explains his latest act of corporate welfare below.

Administration officials estimate approximately 5 million people could apply for temporary protected status that would require a background check and hefty application fees. Those eligible could legally work in the United States for up to three years. Because Obama’s administrative changes can be erased by the next president, advocates believe many who are eligible will think long and hard before stepping forward. Lifting some existing DACA restrictions will make 270,000 more people eligible for enforcement discretion under Obama’s waivers. Including undocumented parents of children who are U.S. citizens or legal residents opens the door to another 4 million people, according to the administration.

Barack Obama’s editorial Cheerleader Paul Krugman, makes an argument that we should appreciate this as a humane initiative. He explains that we are doing for the children.

First, there are more than a million young people in this country who came — yes, illegally — as children and have lived here ever since. Second, there are large numbers of children who were born here — which makes them U.S. citizens, with all the same rights you and I have — but whose parents came illegally, and are legally subject to being deported. What should we do about these people and their families? There are some forces in our political life who want us to bring out the iron fist — to seek out and deport young residents who weren’t born here but have never known another home, to seek out and deport the undocumented parents of American children and force those children either to go into exile or to fend for themselves.

Yes Dr. Krugman, suffer the children; but just whose children do we make suffer? We are bringing 5 million new people into a labor force that has the lowest civilian participation rate that we’ve had in nearly 4 decades. We are opening the country to more people, in complete violation of our laws; when there simply is not gainful economic employment available for the people we already have. Glenn Reynolds links to the following data from the WSJ.

The official U.S. unemployment rate has indeed fallen steadily during the past few years, but the economic recovery has created the fewest jobs relative to the previous employment peak of any prior recovery. The labor-force participation rate recently touched a 36-year low of 62.7%. The number of Americans not in the labor force set a record high of 92.6 million in September. Part-time work and long-term unemployment are still well above levels from before the financial crisis. Worse, middle-class incomes continue to fall during the recovery, losing even more ground than during the December 2007 to June 2009 recession. The number in poverty has also continued to soar, to about 50 million Americans. That is the highest level in the more than 50 years that the U.S. Census has been tracking poverty. Income inequality has risen more in the past few years than at any recent time.

To understand who exactly benefits from this policy, we need to keep in mind who benefits from the influx low-skill, low wage labor into the current US economy. An economist that both Paul Krugman and President Obama undoubtedly have great admiration for explained the following :

“Relative surplus-population is therefore the pivot upon which the law of demand and supply of labour works.” The availability of labour influences wage rates, and the larger the unemployed workforce grows, the more this forces down wage rates; conversely, if there are plenty jobs available and unemployment is low, this tends to raise the average level of wages—in that case workers are able to change jobs rapidly to get better pay. – Karl Marx, “Wages,” December 1847

So who really gets served by this amnesty being proposed by President Obama? Who really has been served by the entire Goldbama Sachs Presidency? We know whose assets have increased since The Goldman One took office. We know what has happened to the rest of the workforce. In any good piece of detective fiction, the inspector has to ask himself “Qui Bono?” It’s always being run for the 1%. The ones that Barack Obama has helped occupy Wall Street.

In forcing this executive amnesty down the throats of the American People; our president has indeed been a good, little Ivy League radical and read his Karl Marx. It’s just that he uses it as a playbook on how to enrich his billionaire donors rather than a critique on the abuses of unconstrained capital. It’s always the Working Class American who pays in freedom, blood and treasure any time a Liberal “Man of The People” occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

The above article represents the world Hillary is part of and trapped in. It constrains any ability she might otherwise have to meet the needs of the American People. The evidence of this is cumulative, and for me it is conclusive. You don’t make speeches for $250,000 and walk with the common man. And you don’t throw out the constitution to achieve cheap political gain which have been accomplished lawfully within a half year– and turn open the spigot for more and more illegal immigration. And you don’t say what difference does it make or blame the video when four Americans die in Benghazi. And you don’t say businesses do not create jobs. And you don’t say we were broke when we left the White House. And above all you do not say Obama is a great man, and ratify what he is doing when it is the fast track to hell. The subtext of all this is stay the course rather than time for change. We can go on defending Hillary, but we need to be clear on what exactly we are defending. The country is controlled by interests whose actions are inimical to the public welfare. She will never ever take those interests on except along partisan lines to reward the four horsemen of the apocolyse in her own party who are likewise engaged in looting the American People. What the nation needs is a true outsider who is owned by no one and can unite the nation. The two names that come readily to my mind are Jim Webb, and Ben Carson. Both of them should run, and if possible they should run as independents. A Clinton presidency by contrast guarantees a status quo which is killing the middle class, and a deeply divided nation.

For six long years I believed in Hillary. I rationalized what I was seeing which did not square with the image I had in my head.
I assumed that she would use the mid term losses as a rationale to forge a different path from the destructive one Obama has been pursuing. And I expected that she would lay the groundwork to re establish the primacy of the Roosevelt coalition. In sum, I assumed that the Hillary we saw in 2008 would reappear.

But it is crystal clear to me now, that is not to be.

As John Maynard Keynes said when someone accused him of being inconsistent: change the facts, I change my answers. . . . What do you do?

What do I do? I’m still stuck on crying “rape”. Is it coincidence that Jeaninne LaPage, chose the day Obama gave away the Republic in a gush of compassion for illegals, to end her family’s miseries? There will be no demonstrations for her, no justice for those like her that do not fit the current pc qualifications for the dole.

And on this day in 1963, President Kennedy was assassinated while riding in a motorcade in Dallas. Texas Gov. John B. Connally was seriously wounded. A suspect, Lee Harvey Oswald, was arrested. Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson became the 36th president of the United States.

I basically agree with all that you say. If it were not so, Hillary would not even be considered for candidacy. And that is why the candidates you suggest would not make it. The American People are too apathetic to support a third party candidate. That is the state of the nation. A democracy in the apathy stage. That is why we see the rise of the totalitarian Obola regime. It is like they know their time is ripe. If they ever had a chance to pull off their takeover, it would be know. Their lunacy is that they cannot see that their ideologies are dysfunctional and are inherently failures. They just think it will work this time if they pull it off on a prosperous nation. They do not want to see that in the broad distribution of human want/need preferences, they are outlier freaks and that those who see them will reject them. Yet they know this and that is why they selected the half white man for the Whitehouse to lie for them.

Big Pink knows them.

They picked Obola over Hillary because they could have 99% of him and only 70% of Hillary. I pick Hillary because of the 30%.

The two names that come readily to my mind are Jim Webb, and Ben Carson.

—–

Okay Wbb, so you have at least washed your hands of Hillary and picked two men that you think would make a better President than ‘sell out’ Hillary. I give you credit for at least finding some guys you do believe in.

Out of my own curiosity could you make some short, bullet points on how their life experience would make them each a better President? I am not going to pick them apart, hardly, I don’t know much about either of them.

I supported Hillary in 2008 because I was believed the Republican Party was running on fumes, and that the Bush cabal had run the country into the ditch. Her partisanship was an asset in that fight, and so was her gender as far as I was concerned. I believed that we needed to get everybody back to work, and to increase the quality of education. I thought gunboat diplomacy would bankrupt the nation. And I believed there she could bring the hard left of the party under control and forge a future where all boats would rise with the tide. Finally, I believed that Hillary had the experience to deliver.

What I have come to realize in the past six years is just how rigged the political system is today against the American People. Time was no political figure dared damage the middle class, whereas today, everything they do enriches themselves and impoverishes the American People. The media aspect is particularly disturbing. When we had small town newspapers there was a feedback mechanism, and a diversity of opinion. Today however we have seen the death of investigative journalism and the media has become an extension of the democrat party which is controlled by the four horsemen of the apocalypse, as noted in the article posted above. Their interests are adverse to those of the middle class. In that vein, I highly recommend Sharyl Attkisson’s book Stonewalled.

The Republican Party is more of a joke than a threat. They talk the talk, but they do not walk the walk. They attack their base and loot them when they are not looking. Erickson tells us we are being played on the immigration think and it is obvious to me that he is right. If I saw Boehner today I would ask him whether he is really that stupid, or does he just think we are.

Simply put the power of Washington needs to be broken. But who’s to do it. I, along with others on this blog, implored her to break with Obama, and to outline an agenda which was good for the American People. If she had done that, then I would stay with her. But it is obvious to me and I am through hoping and pretending that she will do that. And the problem is she cannot do that and still win the nomination. I do not want four or eight more years of Obama, and that is what she would bring. Her freedom to act is constrained by the billionares who now control the party, and she would be forced to do their bidding.

Therefore, it there is any hope for reform, it lies outside the power structure, and feeding trough of both parties.

The two individuals I mentioned are dark horses in the sense that they would not be acceptable to the money interests. But I would still support them. I would rather support someone I believe in even if they cannot win that support someone who rewards cronies, and enacts policies that destroy the middle class and defile the constitution. Any political insider will be compelled to do that because big money now runs the entire show. No political insider can unite the country because the country is divided and whoever that insider is he or she will be associated with one side or the other.

1. Jim Webb: Annapolis, Marine Corps, Navy Cross, his career as a journalist, writer (Born Fighting), his allegiance to the old democratic party, his service in the Reagan Administration, his disdain for Bush, and his love of country. He is smart, articulate and a man of character. I would trust Jim with my life. He would not say one thing and then do another. He does not have money however, and as he would chase the money changers from the table, the Washington interests would move to destroy him. It is surprising how vicious those people are, but they know they are looting the American People and do not want to be called.

2. Ben Carson: he is a man of honor who happens to be black. He is in that sense they antithesis of what Obama is. His personal story is compelling, his love of this country is for real, and he would be the role model the country needs. Politics is a dirty dirty dirty business, and a man who takes the high road as he would makes an easy target for the Machiavellians who inhabit the space. The author of the Dune comments at one point that it is not just the fact that power corrupts, but politics which is about power, attracts corrupt people. But a man of high moral character like Ben might be the way to break the cycle.

I supported Hillary in 2008 because I was believed the Republican Party was running on fumes, and that the Bush cabal had run the country into the ditch.
——————————–
So true, but now we have this one pushing it off the cliff.

The Bush administration was all about the re-forming of the old monopolies and mega-corporations under the pretext that we needed them to go out and compete in the new world economy. But they have returned to their abuses. They own our judiciary, legislature and the chief executive.

Obola is their toy.

I still go back to the fact that Hillary was not their choice because she would not be.

“What I have come to realize in the past six years is just how rigged the political system is today against the American People. Time was no political figure dared damage the middle class, whereas today, everything they do enriches themselves and impoverishes the American People. The media aspect is particularly disturbing. When we had small town newspapers there was a feedback mechanism, and a diversity of opinion. Today however we have seen the death of investigative journalism and the media has become an extension of the democrat party [snip]

The Republican Party is more of a joke than a threat. They talk the talk, but they do not walk the walk. They attack their base and loot them when they are not looking.”

—-> To this I completely agree and have also been saying the same thing.

Wbb “Therefore, it there is any hope for reform, it lies outside the power structure, and feeding trough of both parties.”

—-> I wish the time for an independent was true. And I would love for Hillary to walk this path too. But I have lost hope that this tactic could work under the current circumstances. Look at all the people that have run, trying to do this and have been cut out of the debates, tv time and have been pushed out of the game. Or even better, look at the people that have run more to the center and have been pushed out by both parties…Hillary Clinton, Ross Perot, Ron Paul and many more.

Seems to me since money/power people you call the 4 Horsemen, is the ticket to even play or stay in the game, in my opinion, there are only two options that can make this work, and I don’t think the D’s nor the R’s will allow it:

– Change the rules for everyone running for President, ‘X’ amount of money to run, ‘X’ amount of campaign signatures to get on the ballot, primary voting for all candidates together, weeding out all but the very top three contenders. (By having three people to vote for, it might make it more difficult for voting fraud and delegates giving votes to the candidate their money grabbers want.)

– Each of the last three candidates get the same amount of TV campaigning and debates, for free. If the stations don’t want to allow this, they are frozen out of the debates. Rules on slander and voting fraud should be prosecuted legally, not handled by the parties.

Without rules that have serious consequences on voting and campaigning, it’s just a pile-on free for all by both corrupt parties.

I see you really admire the men you would support. That is important. Just like Hillary, they probably don’t have a chance of winning – like in 2008.

I see Hillary as someone I admire too, with trustworthy character that has battled with politics for a very long time. Has so many knives in her back for not running away for what she believes in, and doesn’t give up…I hope she doesn’t ever give up.